The Atheists Moral Pledge

reply to post by Kryyptyk


Since the beginning. God saw that the light was good after he produced the image for his awareness - his concept of light begot an image of light that was good.

We do the same thing because we were created in likeness. It's good concept reproduction - all of it is. Bad is just created within the mind as an opinion but no one creates with bad intent. You can say, oh he meant to do me harm, but no, in his mind, it was good to do you harm - he was truly producing good.

Read Genesis, you'll see now. What he was doing is good concept reproduction. He kept seeing things were good as he reproduced his concepts of them. I didn't even realize it until years after I noticed concept reproduction.

Bleeeeep
reply to post by jezebel5150

 

To please something higher than yourself. If a bunch of selves is all there is, the concept of a moral rule set breaks down. Moral people become bottom dwellers: case and point - reality.

For what purpose are you trying to please something higher than yourself? I would argue that the purpose of following a moral code, for those who do not believe in something beyond our tangible reality, is to improve the world in which they live, have a happier life while they are alive, and hopefully leave it and its inhabitants better off after they are gone. They may not be trying to "please" some diety that has such insecurity that "it" needs to be pleased by something as insignificant as us, but it still seems like a pretty valid purpose to me.

reply to post by jezebel5150


Because it is the highest good to please the highest good. If there is no highest good, it is circular; and it is at this point, morals break down (without a highest good). Essentially, you would exist to feed yourself good. Is this the answer? No, it's not - I am well beyond this thought - but I want to know what you think.

Bleeeeep
reply to post by Kryyptyk

 

...
Read Genesis, you'll see now. What he was doing is good concept reproduction. He kept seeing things were good as he reproduced his concepts of them. I didn't even realize it until years after I noticed concept reproduction.

edit on 10/12/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)

That really had nothing to do with what I said.

See, your whole concept of moral reality is flawed. You think that mankind needs divine intervention in order to have a conscience. We don't. Every person has a conscience, and whether they choose to heed it or not is their individual choice. Deity and dogma have nothing to do with it.

You obviously believe that the god of the bible exists. Your god implicitly gave man free will, according to your beliefs. Therefore you're saying that if a man does right by his conscience, he's doing it to please his god. You must also believe the reverse: that if a man chooses to commit a crime or act immorally, he does so to spite his god.

To man who has no god, these assumptions would seem absurd, and rightly so. Moral judgement comes from within, just as guilt comes from within. Both are products of the human conscience, and both are independent of any god or religious figurehead. Therefore it is just silly to assume that a person would choose to do right or wrong to please a god that has no interest in guiding your actions directly.

Bleeeeep
reply to post by jezebel5150

 

Because it is the highest good to please the highest good.

Sorry but what is the difference between your "highest good" understood by you to be a divine being (presumably) and my "highest good" understood by me to be the whole of mankind and all other forms of life in our universe? We are both using our existence for the benefit of that which we subjectively deem to be the "highest good". What makes your purpose more valid than mine?

reply to post by Kryyptyk


You're mixing conscience and morality, I think.

Conscience is the voice that says, "nah don't do that."

Morality is the set of concepts that give ideas to the voice.

It is the weird set of laws that societies and gods make.

I wouldn't begin to argue that you can even do away with conscience. Morals on the other hand, are variable rules.

Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms (principles and rules). In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human commits actions that go against his/her moral values and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when actions conform to such norms. The extent to which conscience informs moral judgment before an action and whether such moral judgments are or should be based in reason has occasioned debate through much of the history of Western philosophy.

source:en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by jezebel5150


One group points to a physical/tangible higher thing, as believed by them, and the other group says there is no higher thing, and it is just emotions.

Bleeeeep
reply to post by Kryyptyk

 

It is the weird set of laws that societies and gods make.

I wouldn't begin to argue that you can even do away with conscience. Morals on the other hand, are variable rules.

edit on 10/12/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)

Morals and conscience go hand in hand. Having a moral compass to guide you comes from living experience and external influences such as societal norms and group dynamics. Our families, friends, and even strangers can have a profound impact on the development of our moral compass starting from a very young age. Whether we choose to follow those lessons is our choice. Our conscience lets us know if we made the right one.

So therefore yes, I could see that your personal moral code could develop from religious influences. But no god ordained it to be so, you chose it.

Kryyptyk
So therefore yes, I could see that your personal moral code could develop from religious influences. But no god ordained it to be so, you chose it.

You're getting into destiny and determinism now. That is not what my opening post is about.

If you want to talk about determinism, fine, but let's address it as such.

Is determinism what you want to talk about?

You want to address the fact that since their is order in the universe then there can be no chaos - no random? If random ever existed, it ended when order was created. Determinism, yes?

Time is relative? For us to even effect time we would have to stop it? Otherwise, time is what we experience as it comes to us.

www.frontiersin.org...

"Post-stimulus physiological activity" is a fun way to say time comes to us, isn't it? There's too much evidence to argue against it.

Bleeeeep

Kryyptyk
So therefore yes, I could see that your personal moral code could develop from religious influences. But no god ordained it to be so, you chose it.

You're getting into destiny and determinism now. That is not what my opening post is about.

If you want to talk about determinism, fine, but let's address it as such.

Is determinism what you want to talk about?

edit on 10/12/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)

No, I'm talking about choice there in that last paragraph.

Your question was how does a non religious person define their moral code. I've answered that question multiple times. We choose.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

You, and others, are trying to reason byway of throwing your perceived enemy under the bus. It is not my intention to judge your morality.

My apologies if it came across that way. I was trying to draw a stark contrast between the two, yet end up at the same place...

The difference in a pledge to an eternal entity/entities with what is believed to be perfect understanding versus a pledge to the emotionally charged self.

I think this is your first mistake. You seem to have already made a judgement that morality among atheists, of necessity, must be emotionally charged. When the very idea is actually based in logic. As I said before. It is a necessary universal etiquette among our species that was arrived at through experience and observation, and tweaked over time. It very much has to do with survival, but it also has to do with common sense.

Is it your understanding that people know what is wrong or right without divine knowledge? Is there a moral right or wrong without divinity to say such a thing?

The short answer to both questions is yes.
The longer answer is that, as a species, we have an innate desire to see our species survive and thrive. This then, is the driving factor in humans to find a way to make that happen. Over time, that way was developed, saturation was accomplished, and the basics of that, are now instilled by our parents as we grow up.
The emotional charge you speak of, that is common among ALL humans, is a primal response, filtered through an intelligent mind.

reply to post by Klassified


Well put. My thoughts exactly. There are a lot of things that factor into the creation of an individuals moral code, and its not ever set in stone. As we change, sometimes our perceptions change, and morals and ideals based on those perceptions change as a result. But simple logic and an intelligent choice are very heavily weighed into it, as well as cultural bias. So there is a certain amount of fluidity to a moral code, even if its finite.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Living a happy life, makes moral values something you can't do without, in my opinion.

What would other people do with you, if you would live life, without any moral sense that makes you appreciate others, and consider the wishes and feelings of those around you.
You can only be part of a society, if you will feel to be part of it, and you act to improve or better it, so you can get the most out of it on a personal level.

Moral is some sort of unwritten system, that comes from living in a group. It's what we do, and what we've always done.
With changing morals in changing societies, it's not even a set list of how to live... It is something that will be in motion, as time passes.

No Atheist or religious person will ever live without moral, ever.
Unless they stop being part of a group society that is...

There are always exceptions, but in this case we would be talking about anti social behavior, or even a lack of social skills that would make someone live by their own set of rules. Mentally ill is what we would call these people.

Does this answer your question ? I didn't even have to give any argument from an atheist point of view to explain it.
Since I'm not an atheist by heart, that point of view isn't mine to give.

It seems to me rather vacuous, insincere, and somewhat bankrupt if one adheres to a standard of behavior based solely on the presumption of a watchful and omnipresent Sky-King. That may be why I am not especially trustful of the devoutly religious.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I must agree. Some of the most moral people I know are Atheists, and some of the most twisted people I know are Christians (I should know, I am one).

However, something I feel should be included in the Atheists 10 commandments (if there were such a thing):

"Thou shalt be a dick to Christians at every turn. Buddhists and every other religion is fine, but be a complete ass to Christians at every opportunity."

Should definitely be in your "moral" code. Atheists are some of the preachiest people I've ever met.

Human behavior is not tied to memes. Religions are memes. Depending on which one you choose to succumb to, your morality, based on the meme will be different.

When you are born you are unburdened with memes yet human children ( and other mammals for that matter) have natural empathy toward other beings.

Children have to be programmed by adults to latch on to religious memes. Once in, they spend the rest of their lives wondering how everyone isn't making the same "decision" they did.

Much of what I was taught during childhood I had to unlearn. The golden rule, is one thing that always made perfect sense to me and it's always in the back of my mind.

If you want a label, secular humanism is the best I've come across.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

I'm trying to decide if this is a sincere request for an explanation - or just another opportunity to judge

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt - and give you a sincere answer. However - it's just my answer. I can't speak for anyone else - any more than you can

If "when you die you're gone", is a true sentiment for you, how do you justify only doing what is morally right, if doing something morally wrong will help you better survive in the here and now? i.e. What logic, or rationale, is there in being morally just, if it does not help you better survive?

What is and isn't morally just? What are your standards - and are they absolute?

I am human - I grew up among humans...so - pretty much what's good for the humans is good for me - and vice versa :-)

I love my fellow man - as I love myself. Doubt this if you wanna - but it's not going to get any more complicated than that. I also don't need daddy to tell me to love my brother and treat him right - I just do. Seems obvious enough

So, what is your pledge to, and how do you justify it?

What is your obsession with pledging? Is this about fealty? Really?

Loyalty to and love for your family is built in - it's just up to the individual to decide who is family and who is not

For me - family is everyone. Some people have a narrower definition - but, whatever

Oh, and they don't believe in God. Hope this helps. Atheists are just as wonderful and just as messed up as anyone else. It's time to stop looking at atheists as if they're sinners, defective, ignorant, miscreants...freaks

If you didn't believe in God - would you behave differently? Would you be less?

Do people who believe in God always behave well?

:-)

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Should definitely be in your "moral" code. Atheists are some of the preachiest people I've ever met.

Only when Christians get them started. LOL.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Should definitely be in your "moral" code. Atheists are some of the preachiest people I've ever met.

Preachy? :-)

The Christians see us as...preachy?

We've had several thousand years of being told what to do - how to do it - what to be and not be... Dissenters have been punished (and worse) at every turn - and you see rebellion and denouncement as preachiness?

Words are funny

:-)

I know what you mean - but, I think you're not really seeing the bigger picture. Someday - when people stop judging each other - the preachiness will hopefully be a thing of the past

Until then - maybe turnabout is fair play?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Cry me a river. When we start throwing you to the lions you can complain to us about your persecution complex.