The Atheists Moral Pledge

Bleeeeep

You deny a perfect perspective, I do not.

And it is with that same sense of perfect perspective, that people live their lives. If it doesn't exist, we're all delusional for striving for it.

Now you might be getting somewhere. I'm pretty sure that is exactly what others have been trying to point out to you for a while now.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Always respect others as you would have them respect you. That's my atheist pledge. And yes, morality is counter to survivalism. I think it's a result of evolution.

reply to post by mOjOm


What, that we're all delusional?

Nonspiritualist say there is no true right or wrong, as it could only exist as a spiritual thing.

My questions are not aimed at spiritual atheists. If you are spiritual, it is logical to practice morality, but then I have to ask: where does the true right and wrong come from if not a mind?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Bleeeeep

 

And yes, morality is counter to survivalism.

I think you're the only one who has been brave/honest enough to say it - thanks for that bravery/honesty.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Its just the truth.

Bleeeeep

What, that we're all delusional?

Yep. Delusional may not be the best word to describe it, nor can anyone say for certain that it actually the case but it's certainly not something that should be dismissed either.

Nonspiritualist say there is no true right or wrong, as it could only exist as a spiritual thing.

My questions are not aimed at spiritual atheists. If you are spiritual, it is logical to practice morality,

Can I get a breakdown on how you define each of those terms: NonSpiritual Atheist and Spiritual Atheist??

Also does that mean you can have a Spiritual and NonSpiritual Theist too and if so Define them too please??

but then I have to ask: where does the true right and wrong come from if not a mind?

I would say most definitely it would come from the mind. Maybe not always from the Conscious Mind alone but would include the Unconscious mind as well. I'm including emotions to be part of at least one of those minds too. However, once again I do not agree that there can be shown to be a TRUE right and wrong. That is your claim.

reply to post by mOjOm


Nonspiritual atheist is an atheist that disbelieves that there is a spiritual force to reality.

The spiritual atheist is like Buddhists. They disbelieve in a god, but they believe in a spiritual force.

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a nonspiritual theist, but that is not to say they do not exist. There are those who think god is like a super being from an alien planet - that sort of thing, but I'm unsure whether or not they think he is spiritual or that we are spiritual etc.

If you believe as the Buddhists, that there is some spiritual field, or cosmic rules of unseen forces, that desire we behave a certain way, or plays a role in desires, then I would say you're spiritual.

If you think there isn't a universal force, or god, whom desires we behave a certain way then you're nonspiritual.

I would say, spiritualism is about will and desire, at a universal level.

reply to post by Bleeeeep



I read most of the post, I doubt there would be as many atheist as there are if religion didn't have such an ugly reputation, but we have to take into consideration ancient people and their cultural beliefs.

In regards to atheism or religion, atheist nations as well have a horrific reputation.

I tend to believe that religion was an inevitable and necessary part of evolution.
en.wikipedia.org...
However I do believe in a creator. WHY?

Because of science, everyday scientific discoveries point to a creator.

I wish I had the words to express it, think of early man trying to process and understand the sun, the stars.

That beautiful innocence, that is magic, that is spirituality, when you can fully understand everything it loses its power its supernaturalality.

You do realize how little we do understand?

I wish for you all to experience without question, what you have been missing.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

Because of science, everyday scientific discoveries point to a creator.

To an illiterate man, writing tells him that something happened but not what. Keep that in mind.

Let's consider those atheists nations in regards to moral values of atheist leaders in those nation.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

Because of science, everyday scientific discoveries point to a creator.

To an illiterate man, writing tells him that something happened but not what. Keep that in mind.

So many times I have in the past listed the many scientist that were atheist that changed their mind because of science.
That their scientific study brought them to the belief in a creator.

survivor is on GTG
bbl

reply to post by Stormdancer777


The terminology of what atheism is, is not very well defined, but if it were, I think we would not see all that many that are nonspiritual.

Most atheists would fall into "spiritual atheism".
Then all the babies of the world, and people living under rocks, would fall into "lack of belief atheism".
And then all the self-proclaimed atheists would fall into "nonspiritual atheism", and we could see that there are not all that many of them.

As far as science discovering God, maybe, idk. Science seems to be off thinking about multiple dimensions and dark energy and I'm still trying to figure out how a piece of meat can create thought. Like what the heck is a mental image made of and who are we lol?

reply to post by Stormdancer777

So many times I have in the past listed the many scientist that were atheist that changed their mind because of science.
That their scientific study brought them to the belief in a creator.

I cannot speak for them. Nor can I speak for their ability or inability to discern between evidence of the divine and evidence of whatever else.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

.The terminology of what atheism is, is not very well defined, but if it were, I think we would not see all that many that are nonspiritual.

Most atheists would fall into "spiritual atheism".
Then all the babies of the world, and people living under rocks, would fall into "lack of belief atheism".
And then all the self-proclaimed atheists would fall into "nonspiritual atheism", and we could see that there are not all that many of them.

Atheism is simply defined as not believing in deitys nothing else.

There was a study done on how atheists identify and they have established 7 different categories, spiritual atheist wasn't one of them.

reply to post by Grimpachi


What do they call it? Nonreligious atheism?

Can I see the terms, please?

This?
www.theguardian.com...

www.atheismresearch.com...

They're including agnostics as atheists, and I guess it's fair, but they're referring to the spiritual atheists as those who enjoy ritual? As in they do not believe it but its fun?

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Do you mean non-theist? Basically that means the whole thing is a non issue. No real stance on anything political nor are they likely to be verbal on the subject. It is simply their belief or non belief and they keep to themselves about it.

Here is the best article about it IMO.www.washingtonpost.com...



Spiritual atheist is sort of a double discription it works but doesn't say a lot. Spiritual means different things to different people. It's meant different things to me throughout my life. I think the key thing to remember is most atheists (I think) are fairly far removed from the supernatural. I keep an open mind on ghosts but I certainly don't consider myself as spiritual.

reply to post by Grimpachi


No. That 6 types doesn't properly address spiritualism.

Not the best source but it gives you an idea: source

Buddhism
Non-literal Christianity
Non-literal Islam
Jainism
Non-literal Judaism
Non-literal Theism
Hinduism
New Age
Paganism
Pantheism
Panentheism
Spiritual Humanism
Spiritual Naturalism
Taoism
Wicca

It's when the top chief of the universe, or reality, is not a person, but a cosmic/universal force. Then they say things like we're all god, or spirit brothers, or something similar.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

No. That 6 types doesn't properly address spiritualism.

I wasn't saying it addressed spiritualism just Atheism. I was going by memory when I said 7 but the article was saying as time goes on and as atheism becomes more prominent more sub categories will most likely appear.

Not that any of it matters but it is somewhat interesting.

reply to post by Grimpachi


You realize your link says spiritual atheist?

Atheist, but spiritual: I was recently on a three-atheist panel at a Unitarian Church forum on atheist spirituality, with me as the lone unspiritual atheist. The others said they were atheists—“but spiritual.” I began, “Jonathan (the previous speaker) is a child molester, but….” I then paused. The stunned attendees heard me say something awful about Jonathan, which I qualified with a “but,” leading them to believe my initial remark about him wouldn’t be as bad as it sounded. Of course, Jonathan wasn’t a child molester. I used this device to pronounce him guilty of distancing himself from “typical” atheists with his “but.”

Jonathan didn’t mean to imply what I inferred, and we continue to be friends. He remains a spiritual atheist, except now without a “but.” Thank goodness (not God) for small victories. And thank you, Jonathan.

source

Are you arguing for sake of arguing? No hard feelings.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Concerning the morality of sharing the demise of a close one with a friend... Of course I can make sense of it.

I'm human.

It's not purely about pleasure, as you keep trying to reduce it to... it is about the human condition, and sharing the entire gamut of human emotions with those around us... pleasure, pain, hate, love, etc. Sure... pleasure is a part of it, but it's not the defining factor.

Exactly the same as with you... you derive pleasure from pleasing your god, but surely pleasure isn't the only reason you follow a god. It would be disingenuous to say you are religious purely because it gives you pleasure. Same as for an atheist, it is untrue to say they only have morals because it gives them pleasure.

I never said that I deny a perfect perspective... I just hold that every perspective is perfect in its own way.

Can you even define what this singular "perfect perspective" is, that you keep referring to? Is it immutable? Is it ever shifting? Is it god... and if so which definition of god is it?

No-one on earth has "perfect perspective", as laid out by the very precepts of religion. You yourself said that you don't have it but strive for it.

So, since, as far as humanity is currently concerned, there is no completely knowable "perfect perspective", yet you and I still share similar morals (different based on our own personal perspective), it's obvious our morals exists despite any external force.

This is highly suggestive of morals (right/wrong, etc.) being separate of a personal belief system, and more related to the interactions of individuals, schools of thought and society.

ie. You and I are figuring out a common moral set right now, with these discussions, that we will use in any future interactions we have.

With your viewpoint from a theology, and my standpoint of no guiding force other than the self... both of which are perfect perspectives when taken in context of the holder of those perspectives (though may be contradictory when applied to the the others' perspective)... a singular "perfect perspective" has no bearing on our day to day lives beyond an ideal, regardless of whether it exists for real or not.

If this wasn't the case, differing philosophies wouldn't share similar moral sets... which they absolutely do (you and I can agree that an unjust murder is wrong, regardless where our individual viewpoints arose from).

You and I don't seem so different, minus the diametrically opposed starting points. Even if we walk away from this in complete opposition to each other (which I find doubtful, since we do share many common morals), that opposition itself is part of what defines each of our moral sets.

The world needs opposing viewpoints.

You and I are defining societies' morals for the here and now.