Can Atheists be ethical?

[Kester]

This is a question asked for as long as I can remember. Well it's actually usually stated as "How can an Atheist be ethical or have morals?".

Personally, I think this question is so full of ignorance it's untrue. What difference does believing in afterlife and higher (all judging) power have on living a good life? Surely not believing in a higher power holds no significance on whether I choose to live my life as a good person or not.

In fact I put it to you that Atheists live life with better ethics and morals than people who follow a religion. Before you start having a go, I'll explain my point.

A religious person's morals are based on a fear of god. At a basic level, religious people are good, because they believe if they are not they will be judged to have been a bad person by god and sent to hell.

An Atheist lives their life by morals set out by themselves, with no fear of being judged by god and therefore sent to hell. In essence we are good through choice and not fear.

Now answer this, which is better - To live a good life through choice, or through fear of being punished?

[Stanhead]

Living a good life through fear of being punished is like living a lie. I'm good because... well, it's just that. I'm good.

[MaxTheLimit]

It is better to be ethical based on personal ideal rather than a fear of spiritual damnation, but it's very difficult to have an all encompassing representations of peoples intentions, and what exactly influences their life decisions.

[Ares]

In fact I put it to you that Atheists live life with better ethics and morals than people who follow a religion. Before you start having a go, I'll explain my point.

A religious person's morals are based on a fear of god. At a basic level, religious people are good, because they believe if they are not they will be judged to have been a bad person by god and sent to hell.

An Atheist lives their life by morals set out by themselves, with no fear of being judged by god and therefore sent to hell. In essence we are good through choice and not fear.

Now answer this, which is better - To live a good life through choice, or through fear of being punished?

I couldn't agree more. Just because atheists don't believe they will face divine punishment for their bad deeds during life does not mean they have no incentive to do the right thing.

You can't bash religious folks for following their codes though- assuming undeniable, cold hard evidence just showed up tomorrow that God doesn't exist, a large number of them would still follow their moral values. You have to keep in mind that they're good people too, it's just that religion instills a final incentive to not let your inner demons take command of your actions.

[Mad Scientist]

I believe history has given ample examples that ethics and morality is a shifting field. Although we may use phrases such as "doing the right thing" and "justice has been served", what is "right" and "just" changes depending upon your era and culture. In ancient Greece paedophilia was considered morally acceptable. In Nazi Germany it was considered "just" to deny people work, fair treatment, liberty, and ultimately, life on the basis of the presence of a Jewish background. The fact that culture and society changes its ethical and moral standpoint on a regular basis suggests that anybody who claims to have undoubted knowledge on the nature of what is "right" for society, is verging on extreme arrogance.

Never-the-less, every society does construct its own system of morality based upon what it holds to be good and proper for its citizens. For example Europe is loath to condone even the most hardened criminals to death, yet in some American states, this is seen as no big deal.

How these moral codes developed is ultimately, i would suggest, an evolutionary system. Societies that allow certain practices (murder, theft, rape) are inherently less stable, meaning they descend into anarchy until a new civilisation crystallises out of the aftermath. On the other hand, some structures are more steadfast, and persist long enough to found new societies and colonies. As a result, we can see that evolution still plays a part, even among the stage of ethics and morality.

Therefore it should come as no surprise that I, an atheistic scientist, should draw what i believe to be right from what has evolved into a stable code of ethics. As far as i believe any theist who draws their own moral strength from what they believe is divine writ is entitled to do so, but should those ethics be detrimental to a society (divine or not), then the society will fall either through internal or external pressure.

[Mercer]

Yeah, saying an atheist cannot be moral is just plain stupid...there are plenty of horrible people who believe in God and there are plenty of atheists who are horrible people. It doesn't matter.

At the most basic level, the question of morality is wheather or not the person can look themselves in the mirror the next day. Not that this is to say it's OK for a mass murder to murder as long as he can look himself in the mirror, but this is an important thing to consider when discussing this subject.

Morals are a social constuct, they arise in the presence of religion or in the absence of it. As long as there is more than 1 person in an area. Morals can develop. Now these may not be very civil morals by a modern society today, but they are there religion or not. That's why it annoys me when a religious person tries to make the point that with out religion morality would not exist. Of course it wouldn't exist, in it's present form that is! In fact there may be some things that would be better.

The opposite extreme bugs me as well. Some militant atheists try to say that without religion the world would be a great place. This is rediculous. Strife is part of the human condition. This can be combated, of course, and should be, but often strife and violence have been caused because one group considers another group to be immoral in the presence of religion or not.

UGH! In the end I still hate the stupid side of humanity.

[CUatTHEFINISH]

An Atheist lives their life by morals set out by themselves, with no fear of being judged by god and therefore sent to hell. In essence we are good through choice and not fear.

Well said. Ugh, The other day for about 10 to 15 minutes my Aunt (the HR person at work) asked me how I felt about my sister being baptized. And proceeded to tell me to read the bible, etc. etc. etc.

I see no problem going through life living as a good person and giving things back to friends and strangers. That's how I act, I'm not a very angry person. If I goto the assumed hell for that, then I see no reason to be following "god" in the first place. If he does exist, I give him props for giving a chance to experience life, but beyond that, religion is not the highest agenda in my life. Way too much of a burden. All I know is, I definitely wouldn't be anything relating to the Christan religion. I don't have a problem with them, I just don't share the same ideas.

[TheTaxidermist]

An Atheist lives their life by morals set out by themselves, with no fear of being judged by god and therefore sent to hell. In essence we are good through choice and not fear.


Last time I checked, people who are atheists have morals set out of fear of authority. You won't murder or steal because you will be punished, not by God but by man-made authorities.

It's the same idea. You don't steal because you don't want to be punished.

I don't steal because I know it's wrong, not because God told me not to. I don't steal because I know how it feels to have something stolen from me. I don't murder because I would not want to die as well.

[Mercer]

Well, not doing something out of fear of punishment is the most immature and childish form of morality...but look at it this way. I could steal from my work and probably not get caught by quiting next week. "Oh, look some speakers, I think I'll take these, oh and some software, oh more licences don't mind if I do!"

But I don't do that. There's more to morality than just fear of reprisal. Although for many people this is how their mind works and it's the only reason they are "moral"

[MaxTheLimit]

Last time I checked, people who are atheists have morals set out of fear of authority. You won't murder or steal because you will be punished, not by God but by man-made authorities.

It's the same idea. You don't steal because you don't want to be punished.

I don't steal because I know it's wrong, not because God told me not to. I don't steal because I know how it feels to have something stolen from me. I don't murder because I would not want to die as well.

That's kinda flawed though because there are a lot of areas that aren't covered by common repercussions. There are lots of things that are legal that aren't really moral. There are lots of immoral things that you don't really have much chance at getting caught. That's true morality.

[TheTaxidermist]

The golden rule, treat others the way you want to be treated. I try to live by that as best possible. That's where I look to see what is moral.

Was that guideline set out in the Bible? Yes, but does that mean I'm only doing it because I fear the man upstairs? No. I follow it because it is the RIGHT thing. Guaranteed, most people who are Christians don't only do the right thing because of their fear of punishment.

[Atomic Waffle]

A life lived for others is a life worthwhile.

[BahamutBBob]

To live a good life through choice
That's what I choose. I'm not an Atheist, but at the same time I don't fear judgement. I am who I am, if I lose points because of it, then oh well. I do believe there is a higher power, but I'm not really sure what to do about it. I was raised as a Mormon, but from my experience Mormons are ****ing annoying!

[Mercer]

A life lived for others is a life worthwhile.

Sorta...but that's another discussion for another day :D

[Atomic Waffle]

I find it hard to believe in anything else than what IS, if you know what I mean. I cannot believe there is no afterlife, and I cannot believe there is. A place such as hell designed only for eternal damnation is a concept I really can't comprehend out of the sheer stupidity of it. Likewise, I find that an end to all existance after death equally frightening, and equally stupid concept for me to believe.

I derrive my ethics and morality out of what exists here, today, and what I can do to improve the time that people have on this planet, as well as to improve my own existance. I find Capitalism in the United States and abroad to be wholly disgusting, because it allows lower-classes to be socially and economically crushed by richer people. It isn't benificial to mankind in the long run, really.

I'm what people would describe as a good person, not out of fear of God, or a massive void of nothingness*, but because I can. Everyone deserves a decent existance, however long it may be. If I live for the moment.

That is, unless someone decides to make things difficult for myself or someone else. Then i'm a total jackass. :D

*An endless oblivion of nothingness is my version of hell.

[Sersoft.corp]

There is no afterlife.. get over it

And if there was, I would try to come back and tell everyone...

[Atomic Waffle]

You don't have any bloody proof... Get over it. Neither does anyone, anyways. So don't try to impose any damn belief and just get on with your life. See my sig quote.

[jambo]

There is no afterlife.. get over it
You know this how...?

[Sersoft.corp]

Cuz nobody came back to tell us.

[BahamutBBob]

The fact that nobody came back to tell us weighs more heavily towards our consciousness disappearing into nothingness.

[Atomic Waffle]

Or it's impossible. Quite a few things are outside of the relm of human comprehension. Where the conciousness goes is out of our comprehension, because we cannot comprehend a mindless existance correctly.

Jesus was a capricorn, he ate organic food.
He believed in peace and love and never wore no shoes.
Long hair, beard, and a funky bunch of friends.
Reckon if he was alive today they'd nail him up again.

In short... If anyone came back to tell us, they did it a little too early. If you want to alert the civillization you created that you exist, do it when they are well developed and able to understand what the **** you want them to do.

[intooblivion]

I remember the last time I came back to life...

Anyway, it is annoying how, in my experience, christian people force their beliefs on others. I was once walking along my local riverwalk, which is supposed to be a quiet place. If too many teenagers gather in one place, then they are told to move because of the noise.

And then there's this christian guy with a hugeass MEGAPHONE yelling SCRIPTURES out, disturbing the peace like no other, and NO BODY GIVES A SH*T. WTF?!?

I hate america's bias sometimes.

[CUatTHEFINISH]

In short... If anyone came back to tell us, they did it a little too early. If you want to alert the civillization you created that you exist, do it when they are well developed and able to understand what the **** you want them to do.

In all fairness. I don't think the human population would ever be ready for something like that. There will always be extremist who would do anything in their power to kill a messiah, religious nuts would flock to him/her. People would stay and home, miss work, spend time with loved ones while they waited for the end of the world. Everything would pretty much go into chaos. Human intellect it seems, is de-evolving in locations. You know it's sad when high school kids pull out calculators to do a simple problem like 8x6 or 3/10.

Anyway, it is annoying how, in my experience, christian people force their beliefs on others. I was once walking along my local riverwalk, which is supposed to be a quiet place. If too many teenagers gather in one place, then they are told to move because of the noise.

And then there's this christian guy with a hugeass MEGAPHONE yelling SCRIPTURES out.

I hate america's bias sometimes.

America is about to be run by religion. Religion is a major campaign tool, and religious people do vote just for the plain fact a candidate is a certain denomination.

y_EKHK1C2IE

Watch the documentary jesus camp. It's not biased. In fact, the person who runs the bible camp promoted the film. Saying "We weren't exploited in any way."

It's quite scary to even see one camp like this. These children are going to grow up into a world thinking god is the ONLY thing that matters in life. I mean what the hell. "Two kinds of people in this world. People who love jesus, and people who don't."

How do/can you honestly segregate people like that?

[Garcian Smith]

I'm going to go off my own experience in regards to this debate.
--

I am an Atheist, and I have been for as long as I can remember. When I was younger, I prayed at school just like everyone else because I simply didn't know any better. However, pretty soon after my Dad, alongside my growing interest in natural science, pretty much concreted my belief that there was no God and thus the Bible and all religious texts do not relay the 'word of God'.

My ethics and morals come from my father, who as a child was more entrenched in Christianity than I was. He was a choir boy, and he got his morals and ethics taught to him in Sunday School. He, just as I did, formed his own beliefs in the natural order of the world, and became Atheist.

My point is, that whilst I agree that morals and ethics do not have to be the sole feature of God-fearing individual, it is very difficult to argue that my moral-compass wasn't born out of religion. Realistically, a child should not need the impetus of the fear of damnation to achieve his/her morals. However, in light of the recent events of anti-social behaviour in Britain, and the removal of religious teaching for young children (and the lack of any real alternative), it is difficult for me to say that me getting my morals from Christian teaching, however indirectly, is a bad thing, even from my Atheist point of view.

Personally, I think that religion is generally on the decline, especially here in Britain, and we should teach morals and ethics through 'Citizenship' classes, and not through hymns and prayer. But I think it is important that we note that it is very likely that our - and possibly even yours, Chris* - morals and ethics are most likely stemmed through both our intellect and our own families' religious roots.

Of course, on a final note, being a Republican also sealed the deal on my Atheism.

--

*I just wanted to point out that this is simply an assumption that previous generations (most likely Grandparents and further) were most likely religious, as was usually the norm.

[BahamutBBob]

And then there's this christian guy with a hugeass MEGAPHONE yelling SCRIPTURES out, disturbing the peace like no other, and NO BODY GIVES A SH*T. WTF?!?

I hate america's bias sometimes.
I've already posted my religious beliefs here, but what I hate most about religion is people trying to force it on everyone.

[Atomic Waffle]

That's pretty much the reason most people hate religion. I just find it easier not to believe in anything and find out later...

[Kester]

I understand you were only assuming Garcian, but none of my family are religious, not even going back to my grandparents on either side.

Religion has never been a part of my life.

[intooblivion]

Before anybody watches this, it is a cartoon of a nazi child being brought up taught nothing but nazism. I have it here only for some of the parallels of religion education and how just because a child is brought up a certain way and they feel that their morals are just, Saying "We weren't exploited in any way."

If someone is brought up to believe anything, they will believe it unless they make the concious choice not to, and the way parents are today, they might not have a choice.

This video is meant of no offense to anybody, only for a point.

9LO03pd6X-4

[Garcian Smith]

I understand you were only assuming Garcian, but none of my family are religious, not even going back to my grandparents on either side.

Religion has never been a part of my life.

Then that's good to hear, because it means that secular moral and ethics teachings are not only possible, but just as workable. I have always believed that ethics/morality can be taught and adopted by anyone, not just religious sects.

[intooblivion]

I have examined all the known superstitions of the World, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world . . . . The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind . . . to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Thomas Jefferson

[Atomic Waffle]

"I have observed that the world has suffered far less from ignorance than from pretensions to knowledge. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress."

[Quasar]

A religious person's morals are based on a fear of god. At a basic level, religious people are good, because they believe if they are not they will be judged to have been a bad person by god and sent to hell.

An Atheist lives their life by morals set out by themselves, with no fear of being judged by god and therefore sent to hell. In essence we are good through choice and not fear.

Now answer this, which is better - To live a good life through choice, or through fear of being punished?I think that living a good life by choice is the best way of course. But the connection that people who believe in God are basically doing so (good) just because God is going to punish them (if they don't) is only true depending on their particular faith, if any, they subscribe to.

Practically all major religions teach that unless you step into line, God is going to squash you like a bug. In christianity, the message is "God wants to keep you FROM going to hell," which is a lot different than, "God wants to SEND you to hell." lol. The real message is that God is the guy trying to save humanity...not by force but by an individual's choice. How this is done can be looked up on the Internet under the term "salvation." Unfortunately, what we see today is a lot of weird stuff that claims to be christian but probably isn't.

I used to be an atheist, but there were things in nature, the universe and even science that got me to thinking that there were just too many unanswered questions where I couldn't honestly deny that there might be a real possibility that things didn't really start from the Big Bang.

What scientists refuse to acknowledge is what was *before* the Big Bang. Where did all the stuff come from? I decided that if science wasn't honest enough to admit that they couldn't explain this, then the answer must lie *outside* of science.

[Atomic Waffle]

Yay i'm not alone!

[Kaze]

Since I'm too tired to type out an age-long paragraph, I'll just say this...

Your life is short, we know this for a fact. What you don't know is what exactly happens in the afterlife, if there is one at all. Why not live your life without being binded by some unknowingly existent being so you can enjoy everything you possibly can in the event that there is no form of afterlife? Makes more sense to me.

Agnosticism for the win.

[dooganking]

Since I'm too tired to type out an age-long paragraph, I'll just say this...

Your life is short, we know this for a fact. What you don't know is what exactly happens in the afterlife, if there is one at all. Why not live your life without being binded by some unknowingly existent being so you can enjoy everything you possibly can in the event that there is no form of afterlife? Makes more sense to me.

Agnosticism for the win.

i do the same thing but for god, not for me...

i am enjoying my life here, god does not oppress me...

(i also had a big paragraph to send out a while ago but then my computer died, quite literally... and i don't want to type it back, nor do i want to give the impression that i have all of the answers)

my basic belief is that in order to say anything on this subject one has to define "ethics" and "morals", however, these things are not finite. what is ethical to a nazi is not what is ethical to a jew... (this has been said in some way before as well...)

in my belief and opinion, being ethical is living life according to your beliefs... going against those beliefs is thus unethical. whether these ethics and morals stem from religion or not is irrelevant.

[7ty714]

To say that there isn't any proof that there isn't an afterlife or God, is like saying that there's no proof naturally rainbow colored bunnies with wings don't exist. Get what I'm saying?

[Sersoft.corp]

I thought of a scary idea yesterday, what if there was a god who crated everything and used to look out for us, but somebody killed him and now we're all alone...

[BahamutBBob]

Or maybe a supercomputer collided with him? :O

http://www.geocities.com/zoidberg_fan/episodes/images/bender_god.gif

[Kaze]

To say that there isn't any proof that there isn't an afterlife or God, is like saying that there's no proof naturally rainbow colored bunnies with wings don't exist. Get what I'm saying?

Except for the fact that we know that a genetic mutation like that is nearly impossible.

We know NOTHING of the afterlife and it's existence.

[dooganking]

Except for the fact that we know that a genetic mutation like that is nearly impossible.

We know NOTHING of the afterlife and it's existence.

so that means it doesn't exist? hell... i don't know how gravity works... does that mean gravity doesn't work? (granted they are completely seperate things)... i am not going to dis what everyone believes (the internet really isn't the way to do that...) but just because there is no proof of something does not mean it doesn't exist... 600 years ago people KNEW the earth was flat... i think you can figure out where this is going...

beyond which... talk of eternity and afterlife has nothing to do with ethics or morals...

[Kester]

Just because you don't know how gravity works, doesn't mean mankind doesn't.

Also, educated guesses and blind faith are two very different things.

[dooganking]

Just because you don't know how gravity works, doesn't mean mankind doesn't.

Also, educated guesses and blind faith are two very different things.

functionally irrelavant (especially on the current discussion of ETHICS and MORALS)... there are no "educated guesses" when it comes to eternity or the afterlife... one guess is as good as the next...

also... you make it sound as though educated guesses and blind faith are mutually exclusive, as though blind faith would cloud a guess and thus make it "un-educated" (as long as the subject matter fits accordingly... obviously there is less blind faith in mathematics than religion...)


(also... on a tangent... (partly because i don't want to look for it myself...) tell me why and how mass emits a gravitational force... (links would be just dandy...))

[7ty714]

Just because you don't know how gravity works, doesn't mean mankind doesn't.

Also, educated guesses and blind faith are two very different things.

QFT

[Manbearpig]

Just because there is nothing to disprove something doesn't make it real and just because there are alot of unanswered by science doesn't mean we won't be able to eventually. I admit we don't know what was before thw big bang but just because we don't know now doesn't mean we won't eventually find out.

[Kester]

Russell's Teapot analogy nicely fits in around here. I suggest people should read it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Also, this documentary - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F delves into the subject of this thread and the teapot analogy. It's a very good documentary, so if you can "find" a copy it's well worth it.

Oh and dooganking, blind faith by it's very definition is uneducated.

[dooganking]

then i await your proofs of all that is... until then... i will do what i want...

[Kester]

Proof of what exactly?

Blind faith, by very definition means no education went into it. If it did it wouldn't be blind.

[Atomic Waffle]

I find that Russell, although obviously quite brilliant, is quite a jackass.

[Manbearpig]

How do you mean?

[Atomic Waffle]

It's just the way he words a lot of his reasoning and is really quite an arrogant man.

[dooganking]

Proof of what exactly?

Blind faith, by very definition means no education went into it. If it did it wouldn't be blind.

proof of everything you are arguing for... the (non) existence of an afterlife, that there is no higher power, that the big bang theory isn't a theory...


and as far as something being blind faith or not, one definition of faith reads "belief that is not based on proof", as you guys have pointed out, just because one cannot prove something does not mean it does or does not exist... therefore until the big bang THEORY becomes scientific fact, it is thus accepted by faith. does that make it uneducated (as far as i know the big bang has never been proven... if it has... my bad...)? basically all i am saying here is that not all faith is "blind"... sure maybe some of it is... and the only reason i feel the need to say this is because you seem to be saying that all faith is "blind". but it can be argued that alot of religions have spent considerable time and effort "educating" themselves on the topic of religions... whether you accept what they teach, believe, have to offer, whathaveyou is a completely different matter... whether you accept that education as being true education is also another matter entirely, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate the point either...

[Atomic Waffle]

Theories are usually backed up by massive quantities of scientific fact. The Big Bang has all but been proven completely.

[Kester]

This difference between religious education and scientific, is that science tries to disprove every new theory in a constant attempt to better our understanding. Religion mearly accepts what is told.

[MaxTheLimit]

I wonder what sort of results would come if religion was looked at in a scientific light?
Sounds odd, and it would have to go against common scientific procedure, but if there was some way of giving taking things from religious texts as truths and then using modern science to figure there metaphorical meanings and how it COULD be true...I wonder if it could b done and what results it would yield...we'll never know because it would be treated as a joke. The results would end up being skewed and instantly blown off...but it would be interesting none the less...Let's get cancer researchers on it...they haven't accomplished much in a while anyhow.

[Atomic Waffle]

Well the whole "Let there be light" thing does bear a striking resemblance to the sequence of events including and after the Big Bang...

[Kester]

I wonder what sort of results would come if religion was looked at in a scientific light?
Sounds odd, and it would have to go against common scientific procedure, but if there was some way of giving taking things from religious texts as truths and then using modern science to figure there metaphorical meanings and how it COULD be true...I wonder if it could b done and what results it would yield...we'll never know because it would be treated as a joke. The results would end up being skewed and instantly blown off...but it would be interesting none the less...Let's get cancer researchers on it...they haven't accomplished much in a while anyhow.
We'd most likely end up with an identical copy of modern science.

[TheTaxidermist]

I will admit many religious (well those who claim to be anyway) people do live by blind faith. But how many people who claim to be atheist believe in the Big Bang through blind faith? You know, people who just hear scientists talk about it so they say it must be the case. People who do no research into the matter.

But to stereotype all religious people as people who follow their religion blindly without questioning it, or to stereotype all religious people as "idiots" because they don't adhere to the same beliefs as you is called intolerance. That would make you a bigot. Which to me makes you as bad a racist.

[Manbearpig]

I never said religous people are idiots, they can believe whatever the hell they want to believe as long as they don't force it on others. Oh and about us instantly accepting everything scientists say, thats not true at all I don't believe every thing they say, I'm skeptical of some and believe in others. If I'm proven wrong or right in what I previously believed thats good as we just learned something new.

[Carbon14]

I was speaking to a christian girl in my class just the other day and found out she was a creationist and didn't believe or understand evolution, it kinda spooked me. I'm not really one to judge others for their beliefs but after meeting someone like that it kinda bothered me that people actually wanted to believe in such backward things. If large portions of the population cant even grasp something as basic as that and want to believe everything began 2000 years ago (or whatever, I am not sure what they believe) it really makes me wonder what hope humanity has of surviving. Even this girl admitted that she probably wouldn't be religious if her parents hadn't been deeply christian.

Some of what she said did make me understand why some people are like that, it was sort of cute. The way she described her "belief" made it seem she always had her little safety blanket when things got tough. Having faith to fall back on when times are rough must be nice, rather than feeling alone.

As for the topic, I don't think religion has anything much to do with how good a person is, although if your a believer then the "fear of god" may sometimes make an otherwise "bad" inclined person behave more reasonably. However from what I have seen the thing that has the most effect on whether a person has morals or not is how they were brought up by their parents.

[Atomic Waffle]

It's 6000 years, and they are called young-earth creationists.

To be honest, I find that in my country particularly, the churches are becoming more modern, and taking the Bible not literally. For instance, the one that I half-attend/help out with barely believes in it at all. The whole system of beliefs in that church is to be good to your fellow man, and the belief in God and the afterlife. They recognize Evolution, and they accept the fact that the Bible is quite different now then the first draft.

[Manbearpig]

If you can even call Canada a country. ; )

[MaxTheLimit]

the most pure democracy in the western world...some of the longest hospital wait times too.

[1337_Byte]

Athiests can definately be ethical, anyone who says they are all mean people are seriously ignorant.

[Atomic Waffle]

If you can even call Canada a country. ; )
**** you.
the most pure democracy in the western world...some of the longest hospital wait times too.
You're completely correct. Us and Australia... We're quite similar, when you look at it. We're both large countries that descended from the British Empire, we're both highly multicultural, we both have small populations... I like Australia.

[TheTaxidermist]

I never said religous people are idiots, they can believe whatever the hell they want to believe as long as they don't force it on others. Oh and about us instantly accepting everything scientists say, thats not true at all I don't believe every thing they say, I'm skeptical of some and believe in others. If I'm proven wrong or right in what I previously believed thats good as we just learned something new.


You missed my entire point. My entire point is like some people who blindly follow religion, there are SOME people who blindly follow science. I did not say that you do, or that the entire community of atheists do.

Saying all people who are religious follow their religion blindly is like saying all atheists follow science blindly.

[TheTaxidermist]

If large portions of the population cant even grasp something as basic as that and want to believe everything began 2000 years ago (or whatever, I am not sure what they believe) it really makes me wonder what hope humanity has of surviving.

Now the fact that you believe anyone believes that everything began 2000 years ago really spooks me. But then again I guess you are one of those people who can't differentiate between catholic and mormon.

[Manbearpig]

Waffle I was joking, my entire family is Canadian. Oh and Taxidermist I think he meant 6000 years ago, which might I add we have proven wrong. As for the blind faith, well thats unavoidable as at least half of the world are panicky, easily swayed, idiots. Yes I am a cynic.

[Kester]

You missed my entire point. My entire point is like some people who blindly follow religion, there are SOME people who blindly follow science. I did not say that you do, or that the entire community of atheists do.

Saying all people who are religious follow their religion blindly is like saying all atheists follow science blindly.
I agree, atheists may follow science blindly, with no real research done by themselves, but what they believe in is not based on blind belief. The same cannot be said for religion. That is where the difference lies.

[Carbon14]

I just picked 2000 because of 2000 BC, I honestly have no idea what they believe and I admitted that, its certainly never really seemed like its been worth knowing (but now I know thanks to waffle =D ). It doesn't really matter, the difference between 2000 and 6000 years in the scheme of how long our planet has been about is inconsequential, believing in either is equally silly (in my eyes). My statement about humanity surviving was more about the fact that religion fails to solve any world issues at all, and while these people are running around saying earth is (6000?) years old they cant be looking at the big picture like global warming or what humanity has done to this planet. Hell some religions apparently still believe contraception is bad and abortion is unforgivable, things that are throwbacks to the times when a groups survival depended on out-breeding its opposition. The last thing earth needs is more humans.

Oh and yes I am one of those people who don't know the differences between mormon and catholic, why should I? Then again thats a bad topic in its own right, its quite amusing that someone can look at someone with such similar beliefs and think that their god doesn't exist while his or hers does.

[intooblivion]

This whole issue becomes moot if you're a pastafranarian.

I guess the whole point of that pseudo religion is just atheists trying to show some of the inconsistencies and hippocracies in the christian religion and the idea of Intelligent Design.

Atheists kind of ethics are really just a mixture of common sense, culture, and our perspective on religion and science.

I guess one problem with atheists is that they do tend to try to make very serious things humorous. So I guess I'm guilty of that too.

[Kester]

Lets keep it mature please.

[MaxTheLimit]

I agree, atheists may follow science blindly, with no real research done by themselves, but what they believe in is not based on blind belief. The same cannot be said for religion. That is where the difference lies.

That is true blind faith in something that changes with new evidence, is different than blind faith in something stagnant. Blind faith is still a poor substitute for developed beliefs.

Atheism is a fairly strong thing to be. To say that they believe for sure nothing exists put too high a stock in our understanding. I'm very partial to the phrase in your sig. I consider myself and anti-religion agnostic. I realize there is much that science and our understanding doesn't address or comprehend. I can say that religion is, in my opinion, a very destructive force to a peaceful human co-existence.

[BahamutBBob]

and while these people are running around saying earth is (6000?) years old
That's just from the time that Adam and Eve stepped out of the Garden of Eden. Who knows how long they were in there? And who knows how long it actually took to form everything? 7 days is just a metaphor.

In my opinion, God created everything, including all of the scientific stuff to back it up. Dinosuars? Sure, they were alive, but it was either before Humans were created, or while they were still in the Garden. The list goes on and on here.

It's not hard to believe in science and God, if you ask me.

[TheTaxidermist]

I like the quote from the God/Computer on Futurama:

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/EpisodeSounds/3ACV20/19.mp3

[BahamutBBob]

That was one of the best episodes if you ask me. However:
Sorry, you aren't allowed to access that.
The webmasters were notified about this.

[MaxTheLimit]

There are references to animals that could be interpreted as dinosaurs in the bible the behemoth and the leviathan are two examples. So it is an interesting concept. However saying that man had dominion over all animals when he was made kinda disputes the idea of there being and entire large grouping of species larger than man and capable of dominating over man. Carbon dating which can measure to tens of thousands of years to accuracy combined with radio active decay measurements it seems very unlikely so much evidence would be wrong...and the dating aspect seem to go against biblical beliefs.

[Manbearpig]

That's just from the time that Adam and Eve stepped out of the Garden of Eden. Who knows how long they were in there? And who knows how long it actually took to form everything? 7 days is just a metaphor.

You actually believe in an Adam and Eve and we are their descendents? That is impossible for two reasons, first of all there wouldn't be enough genetic diversity between two people too populate an entire planet without severe mutations, secondly Adam and Eve only had two children, Cane and Able, both of which were men.

[intooblivion]

Incest?...

[Manbearpig]

What part of SEVERE MUTATIONS don't you understand? We would be looking at The Hills Have Eyes kind of mutations.

[Atomic Waffle]

Humans could possibly have been much more adaptable and advanced in their first stages. Thus, DNA Aquired from some of the very first humans would be incredibly valuable.

[Carbon14]

Aren't you guys missing the point that those that believe in an Adam and Eve are probably the ones who don't understand evolution? Or am I applying too much logic to religion =p

[Kester]

The logic... It burns!

[BahamutBBob]

"Created" doesn't mean "poofed out of thin air." I believe in a mixture of both evolution and creation. God pushed certain things to be the way they are through evolution.

[Atomic Waffle]

The logic... It burns!

[Solokiller]

Yeah, back then the planet was boiling hot, then it froze and got back to a normal temperature,... then another freezing cold time and another hop to normal temperature.

[dooganking]

secondly Adam and Eve only had two children, Cane and Able, both of which were men.

first of all i would just like to point out that cain and abel were not the only 2 children adam and eve had (genesis chapter 5 if you care)

Incest?...

so... yes... technically, which i admit, is gross... but... survival of the species i guess... if its true (for those that don't believe...)

[TheTaxidermist]

Even if you believe in evolution, you have to believe at some point, there were only two non-single cell beings that reproduced to the point of an entire species.

[Kester]

It's not really that far fetched an assumption, given the laws of evolution.

[Manbearpig]

Well if you do believe in Adam and Eve then we are desendents of the first people to live in Alabama :)

[Wasabi]

That's only what Mormons believe :P

[dooganking]

That's only what Mormons believe :P

lets not open that can of worms... (please?)

[Manbearpig]

Too late, they're already crawling toward all of you.

[Kester]

Topic please.

[MaxTheLimit]

The only problem with Atheism being a problem is issues of legal morals. There are some things that are not moral but are also legal. Morals of an Atheist is only limited to the direct ramifications and their own perception of right and wrong. Theoretically an athiest could be in an emotionally damaging relationship and think nothing of it because morally they don't see anything wrong with it, and legally there is very little to say on the subject (for many circumstances). However it is so rare that people have such warped minds that they believe such things are actually moral. Any true ill that could come of perceptions as this are covered legally and thus any real negative effect of no set moral code is covered. Generally Atheist lets one dictate their own morals. But there is several universal morals they every society agrees on. These ones aren't ignored and on a day to day basis when an atheist is a "good" person out of personal choice of self, over a religious man who does as a per set rules for living without having or willing to decide for himself. The latter worries me what else he could be convinced is right...

[Mercer]

The only problem with Atheism being a problem is issues of legal morals. There are some things that are not moral but are also legal. Morals of an Atheist is only limited to the direct ramifications and their own perception of right and wrong.

An atheist is not simply completely ego-centric just on the basis that they are atheist. For everyone it has a lot to do with how they are raised.

Religious or not. Surely you aren't saying that a religious person can't be ego-centric and have the opinion that what ever is legal is moral? There are examples of these extremes no matter what "-ism" one may subscribe to.

Theoretically an atheist could be in an emotionally damaging relationship and think nothing of it because morally they don't see anything wrong with it, and legally there is very little to say on the subject (for many circumstances).

Again this could apply to anyone

However it is so rare that people have such warped minds that they believe such things are actually moral.

Hmm..may not be as rare as you believe...

These ones aren't ignored and on a day to day basis when an atheist is a "good" person out of personal choice of self, over a religious man who does as a per set rules for living without having or willing to decide for himself. The latter worries me what else he could be convinced is right...

Seriously, I'd much rather have a Atheist with his own set or morals that he/she follows unerringly than someone who can be more easily convinced that something is the "right" thing to do when it is clearly monstrous to a majority.

[MaxTheLimit]

Obviously it's not an entirely rational though but the reasoning behind it is that Atheism does not limit your actions on any basis other than your own, while Christians, Buddhists, etc. have clear moral limitations that are not illegal. An atheist could be raised poorly and have no restrictions on their behavior...I guess, I don't really believe this to be possible but a religious person POSSIBLY could be restricted by their belief system. While believing things are moral is a free choice to an atheist, religion kind of limits this. That is pretty thin I agree and I don't believe it for a second, but it's really all I could come up with for a moral quip with Atheism.

[intooblivion]

The christians are trying to question our moral decision making ability.

I can choose the right morals without someone telling me. And yes, there are right morals.

[Manbearpig]

I find that religion is outdated, I believe that the we believe in a god(s) because we are looking for answers or the childish desire for a parental figure who cares and loves us and guides us. However this is futile and will get us nowhere, the morals formed from these believes are flawed and restricting slowing, if not stiffling it alltogether, progress. We must realize that all "morals" are flawed and must realize that right and wrong are merely childish concepts as well.

[Mercer]

Hmmm...that's a whole 'nother debate my friend

[Kester]

Generally Atheist lets one dictate their own morals. But there is several universal morals they every society agrees on. These ones aren't ignored and on a day to day basis when an atheist is a "good" person out of personal choice of self, over a religious man who does as a per set rules for living without having or willing to decide for himself. The latter worries me what else he could be convinced is right...
This reminds me of a quote, in reference to how religion can make people's morals warped and twisted (for instance suicide bombers), although I can't remember it exactly, or who said it, so I'll paraphrase.

"Without religion we'd have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things. With religion we get good people doing bad things, as well as good people doing good and bad doing bad."

Personally I know which I'd prefer.

[ninjalegend]

Just as a side note, I thought this would be a good forum for this.

I was awoke at the crack of dawn by 2 well dressed nut jobs trying to hawk their religion upon me. I was tired and had 4 hours before I had to get up for work. So I asked them why they went around pushing their religion onto others at the crack of dawn. They replied "To help others" and "spread the word of god." I asked them "would not your time be better spent bringing food to the homeless or being a big brother at a YMCA function if you truly want to help people." After a little more clean taunting, the church-bots informed me that my soul will be lost to this fire and brimstone ethereal plane with suffering and the like unless I joined their cult.

Now I ask you, is pushing your own fears on others and making empty threats ethical? Keep in mind, this is a practice recognized by the church. How about what time they come. They come in the morning, so as you will be home. Knowing full well that there is a good chance your sleeping. The target audience is not the sheep that already belong, but the 1 in 100 me's that had a tough loss (relative or friend died, wife left, substance abuse problem) because they make easy prey. You may not be rational at those times. Now THAT is unethical.

[Disc0]

An atheist, if you take it in the sense of someone who personally does not believe in a god or the supernatural, certainly does not have the same simple black-and-white moral rulebook that religion bestows. The morals as proclaimed by religion, though, are set by a figurative god, who is above answering questions or giving further explanation regarding the morals.

To an atheist, this seems silly. The books that proclaim what is right and wrong were written by men made of the same flesh and blood as anyone else. The atheist then has to justify innate compassion and subsequent "morality", which is really a human concept.

This does mean that if he stops here, an atheist might not be able to back up his moral beliefs and demeanor with logic, and maybe he'll even give them up. But the majority either don't question morality, or find some way to justify it.

There have been demonstrations of other animals (mice, namely) demonstrating something equivalent to empathy in its effect on behavior and thought and all that. That we hold our morality and empathy to be something more than an expression of evolved tendencies to cooperate might be hubris.

The religious man can of course say that no, he truly believes in his God and that he is as firmly bound to the arbitrary moral tenets as an atheist might be to his logically justified morals. He can once again bring in the trump card, a supernatural god or natural state, and halt the atheist.

But it's just about all he can do. The atheist can punch logical holes in the religious man's faith all day, but what can a religious man say to rebut an atheist if he can't tout his acceptance of the supernatural as the end-all.

Religion is a very unusual manifestation of evolved tendencies. A formal, semi-logical order of morality is a somewhat less unusual, but still noteworthy, manifestation of evolved tendencies.

[ninjalegend]

Well said. As far as religion being an unusual manifestation, here is my take.

Older religions usually had many gods. One for harvest, one for child bearing, one for war, ext. As man learned to conquer his environment, humans learned to ask other questions. Like, why am I here? Fear of one's environment fell second place to fear of another. There for the tale made up to explain the drought, plague, or even war was modified to fit the new situation. Civilization. Common laws were made as said by god. Don't lie, cheat, steal,ext. It was brilliant! Don't have the police force to police the populace? Use the fear of death to do it for you. Convince someone that there is life after death (This was easy. Humans are an arrogant species and want to believe they are more than cells and chemicals.) And then tell them that they can't come to this afterlife party if they don't behave. To these people who can not accept that they are just carbon based life forms, religion is attractive indeed.


As far as my atheist morals are, they are really simple. Treat others as you would treat yourself. And every logical persons would be different, but kind of the same. Don't kill, steal, ext. But what about what would you do if you kill your best friend? Well, I'd kill me. Your answer might vary. Get my point?

:salute:

[Mad Scientist]

The religious man can of course say that no, he truly believes in his God and that he is as firmly bound to the arbitrary moral tenets as an atheist might be to his logically justified morals. He can once again bring in the trump card, a supernatural god or natural state, and halt the atheist.

True, but it isn't much of a foundationalist trump card.

It is interesting to note that even religions have an element of self determination in them. For example, i know of few christians who would advocate stoning as a punishment for various crimes, despite parts of the bible advocating it. They say that these are metaphores, and not to be taken literally, but would still agree with other components such as forgoing murder and rape etc.

The point is that unless one takes a holy book as being literal truth, the moral jugments in it are agreed with or overuled by the moral compas a person develops anyway. One might as well flip a coin, and then agree or disagree with the outcome.

Ultimatly, humans are the only agent we know of that can make advanced moral choices. Even "guidance" from a supposedly higher source is interpreted to fit the situation.

[MaxTheLimit]

That's the problem. Interpretation. You cannot simply have this book which covers so much and can be construed in so many different ways. Fundamentalists and progressive sects, and orthodox sects, it's all just different interpretations of their respective religious texts. How can you claim something is good when it has the potential to be interpreted as a means of mass genocide? Many widely practiced religions could be interpreted in a way that could mean this to the wrong interpreter.

I do not think that religion should be sacred anymore. It can be personal choice of what you believe, but when it comes to children and your surrounding peers or community at large it should never be an excuse for acts that differ from the generally accepted decency of the area AND the laws everyone else abides by. In a democratic society there is no excuse for not obeying these laws as they are accepted as correct and just by the majority of the population or at the least by the majority of elected representatives. Now keep in mind I'm only talking about diplomatic areas such as most of wester civilization. This doesn't apply to communistic or directorship ruled societies where the majority of the population may not agree with the policies of the government. In those situations maybe it would be better on a personal level to obey the guidance of a positive religious guidance system...only maybe.

[liamkelly3219]

The only problem with Atheism being a problem is issues of legal morals. There are some things that are not moral but are also legal. Morals of an Atheist is only limited to the direct ramifications and their own perception of right and wrong. Theoretically an athiest could be in an emotionally damaging relationship and think nothing of it because morally they don't see anything wrong with it, and legally there is very little to say on the subject (for many circumstances). However it is so rare that people have such warped minds that they believe such things are actually moral. Any true ill that could come of perceptions as this are covered legally and thus any real negative effect of no set moral code is covered. Generally Atheist lets one dictate their own morals. But there is several universal morals they every society agrees on. These ones aren't ignored and on a day to day basis when an atheist is a "good" person out of personal choice of self, over a religious man who does as a per set rules for living without having or willing to decide for himself. The latter worries me what else he could be convinced is right...

You seem to believe that atheists can only determine what's right and what's wrong in conjunction with what's legal and what's illegal and what's influenced by other people. I don't believe that is the case:

BKnYdAKJ9VQ

I suppose I could have given you some boring articles but I just love this video :P

[MaxTheLimit]

You seem to believe that atheists can only determine what's right and what's wrong in conjunction with what's legal and what's illegal and what's influenced by other people.

No, that not at all what I said at all. In fact it's the opposite.

Thanks for letting me know you are retarded though.

[liamkelly3219]

Hmm.. I apologise. I completely misread your first few sentences and made assumptions from then on.
Oh well, the video may contribute to the thread somehow.