The Atheists Moral Pledge

There are such a wide range of philosophies within the entirely undescriptive moniker of atheism that summarily dismissing meaningfulness is, to me, an obvious mistake.

With the exception of nihilists who actually declare an absence of purpose to existence, I think it is safe to assume that everyone believes that their actions do have meaning.

DeadSeraph
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.

We have been at least symbolically (if not on occasion actually) thrown to the lions for generations

It's only really been within the last several generations that people have been able to be open about their lack of belief - and been permitted to live their lives accordingly

How many times do you hear the word communist paired with godless? And that's just one example. Godlessness is, how shall we say it - frowned upon

Your words:

"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."

When it comes to the atheism, Christians have merely been inconvenienced - not persecuted

Refusing to live by the rules of the religious, disagreeing with and arguing out loud in public with the religious - this is not persecution

They also seem (some of them) to be a little weepy and whiny - in a poor sport kinda way

You seem pretty capable of crying your own river - I'll leave you to it

I really want to emphasize the some in some Christians. Not all atheists see religion as the enemy - any more than all religious folk see atheism as an enemy. Or even a problem

Funny how that works :-)

reply to post by Bleeeeep

My guess is that most would say for self, loved ones, planning ahead, or society, with a tendency to invoke the survival mechanism ideology.

I'm particularly interested in understanding what the perceived logic is in pledging your emotional sense of right and wrong, to your other emotional senses.

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?

The way I see it is that your pledge is to your own emotions, and nothing else, since everlasting, or higher than self, does not exist beyond an emotionally charged ideological concept...

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

Is morality stupidity, insanity, delusional, rational, logical, beneficial, or any, and all of the above?

Any of you care to share your thoughts? (All are invited to answer.)

P.s. I will not judge your responses morally - I just want to know for my own understandings of the human mind. (Please answer honestly.)

In my case, it is rationality and custom and nature that guides my morality. It is rational to think that because I don't want to be murdered, it is likely that others do not want to be murdered. It is custom to hold the door open for someone. Both rationality and custom are natural occurrences, as is morality, and therefor, nature guides my every move.

I think anyone holding a morality above all moralities is an immoral act.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

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

It should be noted that Christians were persecuted because they were considered atheists. It was atheists that were thrown to the lions during that time:

from the Martyrdom of Polycarp:

Therefore, when he was brought before him, the proconsul asked if he were Polycarp. And when he confessed that he was, the proconsul tried to persuade him to recant saying, ‘Have respect for your age,’ and other such thngs as they are accustomed to say: ‘Swear by the Genius [guardian spirit] of Caesar; repent, say, ‘Away with the atheists!’ So Polycarp solemnly looked at the whole crowd of lawless heathen who were in the stadium, motioned toward them with his hand, and then (groaning as he looked up to heaven) said, ‘Away with the atheists!’”

edit on 12-10-2013 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)

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

There's too many to try to list, but yes, they are absolute. Not that I absolutely follow them - I mess up just as everyone else does.

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.

This is the information I'm looking for. The what and why to your morality.

"what's good for the humans is good for me", is a good answer. It says to me, you have learned from society what is good, so you recreate what society says is good - when human, you do as the humans do. It is those mirror neurons coupled with emotional feed back that pushes you to recreate what it has learned was good.

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

I choose pledge because it is the best word that I know to say: the willfulness to adopt and abide to all of the do's and don'ts that make up a sense morality.

What word would you use to express it better? Fealty or oath? We can use those words if you like.

reply to post by greencmp


It is unlikely that you would get a real response from any nihilists. The best answer is probably to see that because they create the concept of no meaning that some part of them actually feels like there is no meaning.

It is with the same sense that whatever you pretend to be, some part of you is that thing. Those who pretend to be crazy, are in fact, partly crazy. The concept is there to manifest the image.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

I choose pledge because it is the best word that I know to say: the willfulness to adopt and abide to all of the do's and don'ts that make up a sense morality.

What word would you use to express it better? Fealty or oath? We can use those words if you like.

You know Bleeeeep, I think this is the key to your whole question right here

And, forgive me - I should have known better but didn't think. With atheism there is no fealty or pledging. I can see why this is such a mystery to so many

We are all people - and perhaps we atheists are bound to humanity - but without the promise. Again - I can only really speak for myself

But, maybe it's difficult for you to comprehend behaviors that aren't tied to kind of a promise - or bound by an oath?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


You're saying you have no sense of morality? What "morality" you do have is made up solely of instinctual behaviors?

This goes against your earlier post of mimicking learned behavior.

What I am referring to does not have to be a spoken pledge. It is not required to say, "okay mom, I will not color on the walls anymore." It just has to be accepted and willfully reenacted.

But then, if there is no supreme moral justness, coloring on walls does not matter - not truly. And with that sense, nonspiritualism breaks down.

NiNjABackflip
I think anyone holding a morality above all moralities is an immoral act.

Except that notion is a moral notion and may be above all other notions?

Would you favor an anarchistic sense of morality?

Even within anarchism, there has to be a highest rule, doesn't there?

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I think you misunderstood - maybe - from the beginning.

We all learn from each other - it's true. And we are all of us a combination of nature and nurture. What is and isn't moral is subjective, but there are basic things we all agree on - most of the time. Whatever those things are that we all agree on (basically) are in us (nature) and don't require that we pledge or promise to anything. These things are then reinforced (nurture)

This is what I wondered - is this a concept that's hard for you imagine? You were the one that asked these questions from the start of this thread - so, I have to imagine that what drives an atheist is something that interests you and confuses you

You're saying you have no sense of morality? What "morality" you do have is made up solely of instinctual behaviors?

In a way yes. But more than that - if it's true for me - it's also true for you

But as I also said earlier on - morality is no one single, simple thing

Here's a thread that I think is interesting:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Culture does decide things for a group - that shares that culture. Morality changes - based on the rules of that group

So for you morality hinges on some kind of commitment (I gather) whereas, for an atheist - not so much

You want to call it instinct - but it's more than that. As I said - I grew up human - I learned the same way you learned

I just don't believe in a god - this is the difference. Not to get too simple about it all - but, I have to assume you're implying that without rules, and a promise to obey those rules - there is no morality

And for an atheist to be considered moral - he/she must at least mimic the true moral people around them - the ones that have received their direction directly from god?

It's not my intention to put words in your mouth - but I do wonder how you see this - just as much as you wonder about how I see it

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


The way I see it, from the outside looking in, is that if you say there is no divine good - no set moral laws that are true, then it is illogical for you to abide by them.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I am not saying nonspiritual atheists do not practice morality. I am saying, if there is not a perfect right or wrong, then morality, is illogical.

You are acting out and trying to bestow upon others your moral sense of right and wrong, yet in your heart, there is no such thing? It is again, illogical.

But I want to know how they justify it, in their minds. This is my question.

If there is no supreme right or wrong, why should you have the right to say what is right? (This is not a moral question, it is a logic question.)

Bleeeeep
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

The way I see it, from the outside looking in, is that if you say there is no divine good - no set moral laws that are true, then it is illogical for you to abide by them.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I am not saying nonspiritual atheists do not practice morality. I am saying, if there is not a perfect right or wrong, then morality, is illogical.

You are acting out and trying to bestow upon others your moral sense of right and wrong, yet in your heart, there is no such thing? It is again, illogical.

But I want to know how they justify it, in their minds. This is my question.

If there is no supreme right or wrong, why should you have the right to say what is right? (This is not a moral question, it is a logic question.)

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

But that works both ways and IMO makes more sense going the opposite direction.

You say there IS a divine God, who is also Perfect and bestows upon us a Perfect Moral Code. However, that is only true for some individuals and even just within those who hold that as true, even then there is inconsistent ideas of what that Perfect Moral Code is supposed to be. So you can see that right from the start you are making a claim which is actually not true universally and even when it is true for certain individuals can rarely be found to be equal.

To hold such an idea to be true and then use it for your foundation to build upon is in all rational completely illogical. This is why to support such an argument one would most certainly have to rely upon "Faith" rather than "logic", which in fact is exactly what happens.

What logic, or rationale, is there in being morally just, if it does not help you better survive?

Morality is based on what is best for the species. I remember my textbook in college saying that evolution doesn't work on an individual level, it works on a species level. As an atheist (and educated person), I know that individuals' behavior can affect the well being of the species, and if the species goes down, I go down.

mOjOm
However, that is only true for some individuals and even just within those who hold that as true, even then there is inconsistent ideas of what that Perfect Moral Code is supposed to be.

Your argument is a fallacy of logic.

If all circles are round, but some people drew them with straight sides, does it then mean all circles are actually not round? No, it just means some people drew them wrong.

The fact that people hold separate ideas, of what is perfect morality, plays no role is what is factually the highest morality.

If there is no set right or wrong, which is what you're saying, then morality makes no sense.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


No, what I'm saying is that you believe In a God, who is Perfect and who has a set of Perfect Moral Laws which have been bestowed upon mankind to follow. That is 3 separate assumptions which can neither be shown to be true or untrue for that matter. Once again going all the way back to like page one when we talked about whether or not Divinity has any role in our morality or even if there exists some Divine Entity at all. For your argument to be valid we would first need to validate that there is a Divine God, next that that God does in fact have a set of Divine Moral Laws and then that he has bestowed them upon Mankind to follow. If you can validate those things then we can move on from there.

We are all raised by a group of people, not just parents but teachers ,neighbors and friends. We pick up all kinds of foibles and behaviors including morals. Every society have different moral standards so morals must be learned from environment.

mOjOm
For your argument to be valid we would first need to validate that there is a Divine God, next that that God does in fact have a set of Divine Moral Laws and then that he has bestowed them upon Mankind to follow.

We are starting out with the premise that there is no god.

no god or supreme thing = nothing to command what is perfect morality

nothing to say what is perfect morality = no morally perfect right or wrong

no morally perfect right or wrong = the practice of morality is illogical

thus:

the practice of morality, without a belief in a god or supreme thing = illogical

telling someone else what you think is morally right, if you do not believe in a god or supreme thing yourself = illogical



The only way morality is logical is if there is perfect morality, and because perfect morality can only come from a perfect supreme being, only a belief in said being makes morality logical.

You can always guess at what is most moral, but without knowing, then you are just left guessing - logic, emotionally charged desires, and best guesses is not perfect morality.

We are not debating the existence of god. We are debating the logic in morality without a belief in god.

Atheists would come up with alot remarks to the question of the Op.

Atheists would simply understand logic, however that maybe. They feel little concerns about the after life because they just don`t want to believe that there is a heaven and hell. Especially with their point of view on religion being a problem.

It all depends on the individual atheist understanding of empathy (being in another shoes) and ego, while others are just completely ignorant of empathy and a swollen ego that would effect their morality. Also experiences could play crucial roles.

How they understand spirituality also varies from(example) cheesy robe and sandals, to actual practices from cultures that stuck with traditions.

The only thing they will understand is survival, and how they choose to share food is up to them.

Bleeeeep

no morally perfect right or wrong = the practice of morality is illogical

NO, it's perfectly logical. There is no need for some alleged Perfect God for there to be plenty of perfectly good reasons for Morality.

Are you saying that without your belief in God you have absolutely no logical reasons to act morally??? Is the only reason you choose to act in moral ways now based solely on you doing what the bible says???

thus:

the practice of morality, without a belief in a god or supreme thing = illogical

telling someone else what you think is morally right, if you do not believe in a god or supreme thing yourself = illogical

Try the other way around. Belief in a Divine Authority figure who is Demanding that everyone act in some arbitrary way based upon Belief and/or Faith is illogical. There is no need for logic or reasoning because there is no need for you to think since you already have your set of rules laid out for you. All you have to do is follow them.

To even attempt to form some kind of Moral Code on your own or within society must use logic and reasoning.

We've been over this again and again. I realize that for whatever reason you insist on saying that Morality must come from God but it's just not the case. There are plenty of reasons for morality without ever needing a belief in a god at all. Myself and others have spend pages on this already, you just ignore everything that everyone else is saying and keep going in circles with your own definition of how things are but you are the only one who uses such definitions and reasoning in the first place.

Bleeeeep
reply to post by greencmp

 

It is unlikely that you would get a real response from any nihilists. The best answer is probably to see that because they create the concept of no meaning that some part of them actually feels like there is no meaning.

That would depend completely on what area of nihilism you look at. To which you are referring? If you are referring to existential nihilism then yes, there is no 'higher' meaning to human life. Mankind is an insignificant blip on the grand radar of the universe. We would appear as ants. Though keep in mind that every creature has its part to play, even the ant.

To assign 'higher' meaning to everything is a travesty of ego, and highly arrogant besides. Our planet could implode tomorrow and the universe would continue on as it always has. The ridiculous idea of a 'higher' meaning to human life will fly out the same window as the flat planet and Earth being the center of the universe.

Thinking logically, doing good and taking care of each other is great humanitarian work. But does it really affect anything in the cosmos? Building houses for the homeless and feeding the hungry won't save a dying star, or rescue a wayward comet. Giving monies to various charitable foundations won't affect anything other than events on good old planet Earth. It is human arrogance that blinds.

Its a mathematical fact that life should exist elsewhere in the universe, even intelligent life. By thinking that mankind is better and serves a 'higher' purpose, you're a racist.