Atheist Vs. Conscience

JCB

"the religious don't have a monopoly on morality" courtesy of Bottle of Smoke.

So I ask, as atheists where does your sense of conscience or morality come from? I.e. How do you tell what is 'right' from what is 'wrong'?

Now i'm not after the 'i don't do bad things to other people' response here, or my friends and family, since both answers really are only manifestations of the original source.

I have provided a poll with some possible choices. They are multiple options in case you have more than one. (hopefully it will be less controversial than my last poll!)

Also, I'm just wondering how these sources influence your opinion with say two issues
(i) Abortion
(ii) Gay Marriage

Especially because at least one of them should never involve you.

Sangre

same as theists, from society, culture, upbringing and peers. i just don't think a god laid down these morals.

JCB

Sangre wrote: »

from society, culture, upbringing and peers

Do you mean a sort of 'I see it around me hence it must be correct' sort of view?
Doesn't seem very informed, almost herd-like.

Child conscience certainly comes from upbringing, but really i refer to adult conscience, where one can reject this e.g. atheists who where raised as theists.

Scofflaw

Largely, from two maxims:

1. that the world, and everything therein, including oneself, is real

2. that to treat what is real as if it were a figment of your pleasure is wrong


cordially,
Scofflaw

Sangre

JCB wrote: »

Do you mean a sort of 'I see it around me hence it must be correct' sort of view?
Doesn't seem very informed, almost herd-like.

Child conscience certainly comes from upbringing, but really i refer to adult conscience, where one can reject this e.g. atheists who where raised as theists.

well i certainly don't make it up as I go along. i'm not going to distanced myself from the herd from the sake of it. Our ethics, morals and social interactions have evolved over thousands of years. i don't intend on revolutionising it in my life time.

DapperGent

Not an atheist/Atari Jaguar etc... etc...

What's the fúcking point of this poll?

I'm going to make a poll too.

Q: Do you believe altruism is an expression of spiritual goodness or a manifestation of enlightened self interest?

1. Jam
2. Gnome
3. Old Trafford
4. Fibre Optic Cable
5. John Steinbeck
6. Marmalade

Zillah

Poll is fail.

eoin5

Not an atheist/Atari Jaguar etc... etc...

I donno, I just kinda have it being human and all. Do I have to get it from somewhere? I think they might have had an offer back in '84 where it came as standard instead of an optional extra.

Whispered

I'm not sure what I am at the moment, I don't believe in a man-like god sitting on a throne in the clouds somewhere, but I do believe in things which we dont understand yet. But I agree with what Sangre said, society, culture, upbringing and peers.

This brings the question of self sacrifice - we have all heard the stories of people risking their lives to save people they dont even know. What in human evolution causes this?

kmick

JCB wrote: »

"the religious don't have a monopoly on morality" courtesy of Bottle of Smoke.So I ask, as atheists where does your sense of conscience or morality come from? I.e. How do you tell what is 'right' from what is 'wrong'?

Now i'm not after the 'i don't do bad things to other people' response here, or my friends and family, since both answers really are only manifestations of the original source.
I have provided a poll with some possible choices. They are multiple options in case you have more than one. (hopefully it will be less controversial than my last poll!)
Also, I'm just wondering how these sources influence your opinion with say two issues
(i) Abortion
(ii) Gay Marriage
Especially because at least one of them should never involve you.

Who says we have any morality?
Do not speak harshly to anybody; those who are spoken to, will answer you in the same way.

Tim Robbins

Not an atheist/Atari Jaguar etc... etc...

I think this is a bit of a stupid poll.
Firstly, are all the options mutually exclusive?
Secondly, are all the options clear and unambiguous?
Thirdly, does this question even make sense? Does it not make more sense to find the answer to this question scientifically, rather than ask people individually?
Finally, has this question already been answered by philosophy and science?

I agree with Hauser, Professor of Pyschology at Harvard University. humans have a moral framework and it is filled, shaped and tweaked by personal experience.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0316728152/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=gateway&qid=1200998525&sr=8-1

People (atheists + theists) have all sorts of strange ideas and messed up explanations for morals. I say consult the experts.
There has been a lot of research done into this, all readily available.

Pompey Magnus

Personal Experience

I get my morality from hundreds of thousands of years of primate evolution as social animals whereby altrusitic / moral behaviour by my ancestors to members of their community yielded a benefit which exceeded the cost of the moral action. No guardian angels or holy books neccessary.

CerebralCortex

Other source ~ please explain

I used to think when I was a theist (which isn't that long ago) that you couldn't have morality with out a supreme being to answer to. But that doesn't work for me now and its difficult to put into words why it doesn't. But I certainly feel more moral now than I ever did when I was a theist.

Pompey Magnus

Personal Experience

CerebralCortex wrote: »

But I certainly feel more moral now than I ever did when I was a theist.

Probably because now when you do a good deed you do so without the hope of reward / fear of punishment.

Wacker

Not an atheist/Atari Jaguar etc... etc...

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I get my morality from hundreds of thousands of years of primate evolution as social animals whereby altrusitic / moral behaviour by my ancestors to members of their community yielded a benefit which exceeded the cost of the moral action. No guardian angels or holy books neccessary.

That's pretty much my point of view as well. There is a wealth of human experience to learn from that can inform our choices, as well as your own observations.

Some of the options on the poll are ridiculous - self help books?!? Also, why have a 'not an atheist' option as well as 'adaptations from religious texts', as I would be shocked if any atheist claims religious trexts are the source of their morality.

CerebralCortex

Other source ~ please explain

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Probably because now when you do a good deed you do so without the hope of reward / fear of punishment.

If anything bizarre punishment constructs nurtured by theistic ideas on morality have had a very negative and destructive affects on me well being and social development (to point where I start using very fancy wordiness )

18AD

Other source ~ please explain

It's possibly my brains "empathy centre" and the realisation that when I'm happy I feel good and so do others.
Group effort. Group benefits.

http://scienceandreason.blogspot.com/2006/02/mirror-neurons.html

Good luck.
AD.

Zillah

helena.ryan wrote: »

I don't believe in a man-like god sitting on a throne in the clouds somewhere, but I do believe in things which we dont understand yet.

What does that mean?

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

JCB, does your conscience come from God (i.e. your soul etc), or do you get your morality from reading the bible?

The way I see it - following scripture indicates no more of a conscience than following legislation. Obeying a law out of fear of punishment doesn't make someone moral. Instead, doing something positive, or not doing something negative you can get away with, suggests morality.

If God did instill us with morality, how come he didn't distribute it evenly?

Actually, doesn't the word morality imply that something has been learned?

Whispered

Zillah, I didn't elaborate on my beliefs in that post but to sum it up quickly. As I said a man-like god on a throne is as ridiculous an idea to me as it is to most athiests, however I do not consider myself athiest as I believe that there is more to life than science can currently explain.

Completly agree with the school of thought that forced morals are not real morals at all. I think morals also can sometimes come from a selfish place TBH, if we do something good, we can feel good about ourselves. Obviously this is not always the case but I do think it can be sometimes.

Perhaps the reason for the "not an athiest" option and "religious texts" options were there because the OP understands that some people, while not believing in God, still draw inspiration from some religious texts. And also maybe he was interested in where thesists believe their morality comes from and so gave them an option too?

aidan24326

Other source ~ please explain

JCB, anyone who takes their morality from the bible would have to be a pretty twisted individual, since it condones murder, rape, stoning, genocide etc etc

Anyone who claims their morality is sourced from the bible is either a)a sick minded person or b)simply hasn't read the bible at all.

I saw a programme on the god channel recently (hey, I was bored) and it was a women's bible club. They were reading passages from the bible and the preacher lady was telling all her willing flock that this book was all they needed, everything was here in this book about how to live your life. The fact that women are treated worse than animals in the bible is a fact that was apparently lost on the fcuking idiots. I didn't know whether to be amused or just embarassed to be from the same species.

Whispered

aidan24326 wrote: »

I saw a programme on the god channel recently (hey, I was bored) and it was a women's bible club. They were reading passages from the bible and the preacher lady was telling all her willing flock that this book was all they needed, everything was here in this book about how to live your life. The fact that women are treated worse than animals in the bible is a fact that was apparently lost on the fcuking idiots. I didn't know whether to be amused or just embarassed to be from the same species.

I dont read the bible, nor do I come from a family who reads the bible but to brand a whole group of people as "fcuking idiots" for believing in something you dont, makes me embarassed to be from the same species tbh. Why is it worse to be a theist who tries to force their opinions on people in an agressive way, than an athiest who does the same? Your attitude really seems to be one of total distaste towards theists. It's all well and good having different beliefs but the way you speak about people there is no better that religious bigots condemning other religions.

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

helena.ryan wrote: »

It's all well and good having different beliefs but the way you speak about people there is no better that religious bigots condemning other religions.

Agreed. I have to say those ladies come out better than you after that post, aidan.

pH

helena.ryan wrote: »

I dont read the bible, nor do I come from a family who reads the bible but to brand a whole group of people as "fcuking idiots" for believing in something you dont, makes me embarassed to be from the same species tbh.

Does it?

Take apartheid for example, if I was to show you a group of people who believe that black people were inferior. And say I called the racist group fúcking idiots would than make you embarrassed to be human?

So not all beliefs need to be respected, and some people are idiots that's just a fact.

While I wouldn't call them idiots, I do sympathise with aidan's point, women embracing Christianity is kind of like turkeys voting for Christmas. Just find and online bible and search for woman - and in all that nasty misogyny see if you can find anything positive for a woman.

Why is it worse to be a theist who tries to force their opinions on people in an agressive way, than an athiest who does the same? Your attitude really seems to be one of total distaste towards theists. It's all well and good having different beliefs but the way you speak about people there is no better that religious bigots condemning other religions.

Have a read about atheists and anger, from a woman no less! Now I know religious types don't think they contribute much and are pretty much possessions of men, but I kind of like them and consider them equals
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

Whispered

pH wrote: »

Does it?
Take apartheid for example, if I was to show you a group of people who believe that black people were inferior. And say I called the racist group fúcking idiots would than make you embarrassed to be human?

Good point, however we are talking about women speaking on a television programme which you dont have to watch if you dont want to. Not all beliefs have to be respected, but if you call someone an idiot just because you dont believe in the same thing as you, then, again I will say it's not better than the other way around. Apartheid is totally different than speaking about your belief on TV. On a channel which is solely for doing just that (I assume from the name)

pH wrote: »

While I wouldn't call them idiots, I do sympathise with aidan's point, women embracing Christianity is kind of like turkeys voting for Christmas. Just find and online bible and search for woman - and in all that nasty misogyny see if you can find anything positive for a woman.

LOL and if a turkey votes for Chritstmas, what harm is he doing to anyone but himself?? Would you also compare that to apartheid?

I completly see aidans point, but I think his agression was a bit misplaced, dont you?

robindch

It's quite easy for somebody here to eff off an entire group of people as dumb, but it's uncalled for and just as importantly, it misses the point comlpetely.

I think it's worth bearing in mind that many of the women in that "bible club" may never have been exposed, or may never have exposed themselves, to an independent point of view, or given any serious consideration to the fact that the bible may not be the nice piece of work that the (mostly male) preachers say that it is.

That's a cultural thing, and I think we should ask ourselves seriously if we'd behave any differently, or even be able to behave any differently, if we'd been brought up from childhood never to question a word that fell from the lips of anybody who's been placed into a position of absolute authority. Most people can't, or won't, as dictator after dictator has no doubt discovered to his joy down the centuries.

Just to document how extreme this can become, Carolyn Jessop, a former member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, had a book published recently about her life in the church and the brainwashing that went on. There were some very, very scary extracts up on the UK's Guardian back in December, but they expired the article. A bit of googling produces the following link, but the text is watered down a bit.

http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-shared-my-husband-with-12-other-wives.html

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

Worthy of another thread perhaps?

Let's stay on thread with this one in the hope JCB can respond to the his responders.

Zillah

helena.ryan wrote: »

Zillah, I didn't elaborate on my beliefs in that post but to sum it up quickly. As I said a man-like god on a throne is as ridiculous an idea to me as it is to most athiests, however I do not consider myself athiest as I believe that there is more to life than science can currently explain.

You're still being very vague. For example, I agree that the following statement is incorrect: "Science has explained everything". Clearly it hasn't. But surely anything it hasn't explain is just a big question mark? Are you saying there is something you believe in that science has not encountered?

Pompey Magnus

Personal Experience

helena.ryan wrote: »

I dont read the bible, nor do I come from a family who reads the bible but to brand a whole group of people as "fcuking idiots" for believing in something you dont, makes me embarassed to be from the same species tbh.

He might have been a little blunt, but I understand where he's coming from. It's like when I see Gay Christian groups, do they not read the Bible? Their God is going to condemn them all to hell but they still adore him. It is cases like this where the Christian shepard and flock analogy really does works. A shephard doesn't tend for his sheep because he loves them, he does so because he plans to fleece them and kill them.

As for the women, they believe in a book which says they are "unclean" during menstration and if someone should touch an unclean woman, or if they touch something that she touches, they themselves become contaminated and they themselves must have a bath. Similarly their God sees them as filthy creatures for 33 days after giving birth to a boy or 66 days after giving birth to a girl.

Their God does does defend them in the case of rape, the guilty man must pay her father a pound of silver and he must marry his victim if she in't already married (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). That said he does allow rape of women children in certain circumstances, for example Moses victory over the Midianites.

As for the New Testament, Jesus forces a woman in an abusive relationship to remain with her husband, abuse might be bad but divorce is worse. St Paul was without doubt sexist and deemed women as being not much more than sexual objects for their husbands.

That these women like the morals contained in the Bible is, to me, counter-intuitive. It is not a woman-friendly book and without doubt treats men as superior beings to women.

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

Enough already - there's another BIG thread in this off-topicness.

Somebody start it or I'll have to start doing mod stuff.

EDIT - legspin has a created new thread for this new topic.
Thanks legspin!

Whispered

Zillah wrote: »

You're still being very vague. For example, I agree that the following statement is incorrect: "Science has explained everything". Clearly it hasn't. But surely anything it hasn't explain is just a big question mark? Are you saying there is something you believe in that science has not encountered?

I am being vague because it is not what this topic is about. If you would like to know my beliefs feel free to start another thread that will allow me explain without being totally off thread. And TBH Zillah, a sarcastic comment in the spirituality forum is not a great way to have someone feel open enough to discuss their beliefs with you.