Atheist Vs. Conscience

lostexpectation

jcb you would have gotten much further if you didn't have insulting answer in your poll

aidan24326

Other source ~ please explain

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. 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.

I didn't call anyone an idiot for not believing what I do so get that straight for a start. I said they were idiots for glorifying a book which is, to put it mildly, pretty hostile towards their gender, to say nothing of all the contradictions, outright nonsense etc etc etc

And where exactly was I trying to force my opinions on anyone else? I must be posting stuff in my sleep without realising.

Dades wrote:

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

Well you're entitled to that opinion, but personally I think you're just being an apologist, not for the first time.

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

aidan, just as you have the right to air your opinions, people have the right to comment on them.
I might have used the word 'naive' where you used the words 'fucking idiots'. If that makes me an apologist, so be it.

JCB

Again, sorry if the options caused any offense, really none is intended.
I dunno maybe some atheists inform themselves via self help books I don't really know, hence I included it as an option.

As to why I put religious texts, some while not theists, may fundamentally agree with the 10 commandments, Jesus' words about living, or perhaps the path to enlightenment and combinations etc.. etc..

The not an atheist option is for the obvious, since I didn't want the poll skewed by theists referring to religious texts. OK?

Overall I believe in a mixture between the soul as a source of conscience (as a foundation perhaps) and it is informed, via commandments of Jesus to love one another as ourselves. A lot of complaints vis-a-vis women in the Bible, I think were relevant to the time. However, I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything derogatory about women in the Bible.

I would like to see more contributions to the poll before giving any opinions on the trends.

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

JCB wrote: »

I would like to see more contributions to the poll before giving any opinions on the trends.

You have over 40.
I don't know where you expect others to come from - no doubt the regulars have voted already.
Meh!

Galvasean

Other source ~ please explain

Awesome.

eoin5

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

Yea I'm defo gonna order that, Russel be damned!

DapperGent

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

JCB wrote: »

I would like to see more contributions to the poll before giving any opinions on the trends.

I can't wait. Any chance you could address my poll in the meantime?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Other source ~ please explain

Reciprocal altruism I guess, in a bid to pass on as many genes as possible

Was actually courtesy of Barack Obama, I was quoting him, though I do wholeheartedly agree

Abortion I'm okay with up until the being has a nervous system.

Gay Marriage as in a church I don't agree with but I have no issues with legally recognised civil unions

JCB

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think this is a bit of a stupid poll.

Well if it's only a 'bit' stupid I don't mind then.

I'm interested by the results, the personal motivators & personal experience options won hands down.

I'm also slightly disappointed how much of the replies focused on what everyone else thinks, rather than forming one's own conscience. in other words, the idea that if it's generally accepted then it must be OK.

I think towards perhaps the story of Mohammed and the foundations of Islam. AFAIK, He was annoyed by the widespread idolatry he witnessed around Him and rejected it, and instead was inspired by God to change it.
[Please correct me if i've said anything wrong here]

Perhaps, in 500 years time, people will look back and wonder how abortion was ever acceptable. However, in some countries such practices are widely acceptable or even encouraged. Does this make it right?

A lot of what the votes suggested was a sort of 'I won't bother about anyone else if they don't bother me' attitude.
Would this perhaps be a reason that virtually no one responded to the gay marriage and abortion part of my original post? If it doesn't apply to you, do you actually give a damn?

This smakes of individualism to me personally, which I don't think is helpful.
This I believe creates a society (if even), of have and have-nots, selfishness and many victims.

I just wonder does an atheist society result in a situation where 'evil prospers when good people do nothing'?

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

JCB wrote: »

I'm also slightly disappointed how much of the replies focused on what everyone else thinks, rather than forming one's own conscience. in other words, the idea that if it's generally accepted then it must be OK.

JCB wrote: »

This smakes of individualism to me personally, which I don't think is helpful.
This I believe creates a society (if even), of have and have-nots, selfishness and many victims.

I think people didn't need to respond to the question of gay marriage as their attitude should be clear from the response. i.e. what harm so why not? Abortion is an enormous can of worms and has seen many many threads of it's own - so any real thoughts on this are really only to sidetrack what it is you want to talk about.

Interestingly, JCB, you seem to be the only one who hasn't actually opened up here.

pH

JCB wrote: »

Would this perhaps be a reason that virtually no one responded to the gay marriage and abortion part of my original post? If it doesn't apply to you, do you actually give a damn?

This smakes of individualism to me personally, which I don't think is helpful.
This I believe creates a society (if even), of have and have-nots, selfishness and many victims.

I just wonder does an atheist society result in a situation where 'evil prospers when good people do nothing'?

Well obviously I'm with you on this one. Any society that forced men to marry other men and have sex with each other against their will would be abhorrent and evil. As 'good people' we have to remain vigilant against this*.

I think there was an atheists and abortion thread somewhere else - tbh it's so emotive it will swamp any issues in a thread so best kept in it's own box I think.

* It took me a while to get your meaning here about forced gay marriage. I originally thought you might be implying that a country that allowed gay marriage was one where 'evil prospers', but then I said no, he can't mean that - then he'd be a homophobic bigoted idiot.

JCB

Dades wrote: »

I think people didn't need to respond to the question of gay marriage as their attitude should be clear from the response. i.e. what harm so why not? Abortion is an enormous can of worms and has seen many many threads of it's own - so any real thoughts on this are really only to sidetrack what it is you want to talk about.

Interestingly, JCB, you seem to be the only one who hasn't actually opened up here.

Perhaps because I'm not an atheist, and was interested in atheist views, not comparing the two?

I think you're right Dades vis-a-vis the thread response to Abortion etc..., but I really wonder does the self-interest formation of conscience have a wider impact on society, creating victims. Just wondering about for example, suicide rates, it does seem to smack of a self-obsessed society that doesn't seem to care.
It appears diametrically opposed to a Christian (or perhaps other religious) ideal society, where people are supposed to care about and for others.

estebancambias

Some people hate religion for giving the world morality!!! I was reading about some Friedrich Neitzsche who believed modern morality is based on ''protection of slaves'' associated with Judaism and Christianity.

Is it not obvious that the Bible has indirectly had an effect on all our moral values?

I think directly parents are the ones who have given me my morality. The Bible could never give me morality, however a belief in God can, but probably not essential.

JCB

pH wrote: »

Well obviously I'm with you on this one. Any society that forced men to marry other men and have sex with each other against their will would be abhorrent and evil. As 'good people' we have to remain vigilant against this*.

* It took me a while to get your meaning here about forced gay marriage. I originally thought you might be implying that a country that allowed gay marriage was one where 'evil prospers', but then I said no, he can't mean that - then he'd be a homophobic bigoted idiot.

Curious you didn't use abortion as your example..........

I seem to take a wider stance on the words gay marriage than you do. Obviously marriage involves the potential care of children, any idiot would get that, pH.
If I think that children should not be raised in such an environment, then I obviously am a terrible person, and not even worthy of your vendictive insults.

JCB

estebancambias wrote: »

Is it not obvious that the Bible has indirectly had an effect on all our moral values?

I think directly parents are the ones who have given me my morality. The Bible could never give me morality, however a belief in God can, but probably not essential.

This assumes everyone was raised as a Christian (or Old Testament Jew), what about Hindus or other faiths? Hence, the broad spectrum of the poll.

robindch

JCB wrote: »

I just wonder does an atheist society result in a situation where 'evil prospers when good people do nothing'?

On the contrary, non-religious societies are more peaceful, have longer life expectancies, better education, less crime, and better standards of living. Check out this well-known research article, or the Times summary:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Quite possibly, it's because in atheist societies, people sit around drinking beer, having a smoke, going to the pub and cinema and generally farting around, rather than developing plans to fly planes into buildings, or gather pitchforks and torches and head up the road to the next village to forcibly convert the heathens because they're letting Satan run riot (and you can't have that).

estebancambias

Robin your analogy is too much exaggerated. You depict the Atheist group in a conserved peaceful setting and contrast that with an extreme example.

Religous fanaticism is as indirectly responsible for evil acts, as being an Atheist is for Stalin's reign in USSR.

JCB

robindch wrote: »

On the contrary, non-religious societies are more peaceful, have longer life expectancies, better education, less crime, and better standards of living. Check out this well-known research article, or the Times summary:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Quite possibly, it's because in atheist societies, people sit around drinking beer, having a smoke, going to the pub and cinema and generally farting around, rather than developing plans to fly planes into buildings, or gather pitchforks and torches and head up the road to the next village to forcibly convert the heathens because they're letting Satan run riot (and you can't have that).

/sniggers.

estebancambias

JCB wrote: »

This assumes everyone was raised as a Christian (or Old Testament Jew), what about Hindus or other faiths? Hence, the broad spectrum of the poll.

All reigions stem from Judaism right? So the 10 commandments have just been spread through all cultures and regions giving rise to what we deem morally correct.

JCB

estebancambias wrote: »

All reigions stem from Judaism right? .

I'm not so sure about that, Hinduism is supposed to predate Judaism afaik.

P.s. You owned Robin btw

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

JCB wrote: »

I seem to take a wider stance on the words gay marriage than you do. Obviously marriage involves the potential care of children, any idiot would get that, pH.
If I think that children should not be raised in such an environment, then I obviously am a terrible person, and not even worthy of your vendictive insults.

Children are raised in much 'worse' environments than that, but you are of course entitled to that opinion.

JCB wrote: »

I think you're right Dades vis-a-vis the thread response to Abortion etc..., but I really wonder does the self-interest formation of conscience have a wider impact on society, creating victims. Just wondering about for example, suicide rates, it does seem to smack of a self-obsessed society that doesn't seem to care.
It appears diametrically opposed to a Christian (or perhaps other religious) ideal society, where people are supposed to care about and for others.

I'm getting the impression that you had pre-prepared critiques of a secular view of morality all ready to go here. Regardless of what was said.

You asked for genuine ideas about where humanity gets it's morality from, and seem to have moulded the responses into some sort of community where people only act in their own interests.

Intriguingly you use of the word 'self-interest' in relation to conscience, as that is to me a valid way of view a conscience dictated by an ever-present, judging higher power.

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

estebancambias wrote: »

All reigions stem from Judaism right?

No doubt they'd have you believe that! Tell it to the Mayans...

pH

JCB wrote: »

Curious you didn't use abortion as your example..........

I seem to take a wider stance on the words gay marriage than you do. Obviously marriage involves the potential care of children, any idiot would get that, pH.
If I think that children should not be raised in such an environment, then I obviously am a terrible person, and not even worthy of your vendictive insults.

I explained my thinking on abortion - it's just so emotive an issue that using it as an example will just take everything into an abortion debate - fine but not for this thread.

If you genuinely don't think that two people of the same sex should be allowed make a lifelong commitment to each other and receive the same state protection as an opposite sex couple then fine. But to call it 'evil' to allow it makes you a bigot.

estebancambias wrote: »

Robin your analogy is too much exaggerated. You depict the Atheist group in a conserved peaceful setting and contrast that with an extreme example.

Religous fanaticism is as indirectly responsible for evil acts, as being an Atheist is for Stalin's reign in USSR.

Convenient that you pick robin's post in isolation, and not mention the JCB's statement with it was answering. Let me remind you again:

I just wonder does an atheist society result in a situation where 'evil prospers when good people do nothing'?

As for your Stalin comments let's be clear here.

Communism can and should be held to account for any actions that a reasonable person can infer it calls for and justifies.

Christianity and other religions can and should be held to account for actions which are ordered by people in positions of power or inspired and justified by that religion's teachings and writings.

For instance if the bible says that homosexuality is immoral, and the religious hierarchy support and preach that position then Christianity is directly responsible for inciting hatred and discrimination against homosexuals when their followers act on this teaching.

JCB wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that, Hinduism is supposed to predate Judaism afaik.

P.s. You owned Robin btw

Right. Let me be the judge of when one of you god-botherers 'owns' Robin.

estebancambias

I don't know why you explained the Stalin aspect to what I said when I clearly said indirectly.

You are probably right in your second point though. However anyway as I use to say; 'Religion should be good, God is good.'

JCB

Dades wrote: »

Children are raised in much 'worse' environments than that, but you are of course entitled to that opinion.

I'm getting the impression that you had pre-prepared critiques of a secular view of morality all ready to go here. Regardless of what was said.

You asked for genuine ideas about where humanity gets it's morality from, and seem to have moulded the responses into some sort of community where people only act in their own interests.

Intriguingly you use of the word 'self-interest' in relation to conscience, as that is to me a valid way of view a conscience dictated by an ever-present, judging higher power.

Not really sure about the Jesus Summer Camp comment. I mean the two aren't exactly the same? I read the piece on wiki and just on the side, I was annoyed the see the mention of warfare, in any context.

I wish I was so prepared to have critiques ready to go, but I tend to think on the spot a lot, (hence some of the muddled messages I write from time to time!). I am interested genuinely in source of conscience, but I guess it started to rant a little about effects on community, I am sorry for going off the point a bit.

Of course I used the descritpion 'self-interest' as in 'self-focus', since the two most popular aspects of the poll concerned personal experience/motivators. I realise that I ranted and linked 'self-interest' to selfishness, but I think it's a valid point none the less.

Vis-a-vis, the doing good acts for others in the hope of being rewarded point you made, you are neglecting that we love Christ by loving others. I don't consider it paralleled to not caring for others in the name of self (which may or may not be overpresumptious)

JCB

pH wrote: »

If you genuinely don't think that two people of the same sex should be allowed make a lifelong commitment to each other and receive the same state protection as an opposite sex couple then fine. But to call it 'evil' to allow it makes you a bigot.

I love the way you seem to lock in on buzzwords and ignore context.
I have no problem with the following:
'Two people of any sex should be allowed make a lifelong commitment to each other and receive state protection, be they man-woman, brother-sister etc.. etc..'

To claim that it is equivalent for children to be raised in a homosexual vs hetrosexual environmnent is in my view totally wrong.

What annoys me is that you are fully aware that child-raising is my objection and yet you insist on calling be a bigot when you haven't even given your opinion on that issue.

I just wonder does an atheist society result in a situation where 'evil prospers when good people do nothing'?

I love the way you took this opinion totally out of context too.

pH wrote:

Christianity and other religions can and should be held to account for actions which are ordered by people in positions of power or inspired and justified by that religion's teachings and writings.

For instance if the bible says that homosexuality is immoral, and the religious hierarchy support and preach that position then Christianity is directly responsible for inciting hatred and discrimination against homosexuals when their followers act on this teaching.

This is also completely wrong and you know it.
In fact I suspect it is malicious misrepresentation.

Christianity, as you know, does not advocate, teach, promote or incite hatred against anyone.
As a christian, I do not hate any homosexual person. Anyone who promotes hatred against anyone (regardless of their orientation) does not represent Christianity. You should know this, or else your ignorance is alarming.

The one area I would 'differenciate' is on the area of child rearing, because shockingly, the child has rights too.

pH wrote:

Let me be the judge of when one of you god-botherers 'owns' Robin.

It was a JOKE, as in a bit of a LAUGH. Must I spell this out too????
Really, you seem to be so full of anger or something

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

JCB wrote: »

Not really sure about the Jesus Summer Camp comment. I mean the two aren't exactly the same?

It just came to mind as an example of how kids can have genuinely bad upbringings. No real relevance tbh, just some perspective.

Your original post asked "where does your sense of conscience or morality come from?" And most answers suggested society, peers, evolution etc. But If I believe that to be the case for me - I also believe it to be the case for you, whether you believe that or not.

So unless you put forward what you think is the correct source of morality, I can't see how you can suggest that the "secular" system is failing us.

pH

JCB wrote: »

Christianity, as you know, does not advocate, teach, promote or incite hatred against anyone.
As a christian, I do not hate any homosexual person. Anyone who promotes hatred against anyone (regardless of their orientation) does not represent Christianity. You should know this, or else your ignorance is alarming.

The one area I would 'differenciate' is on the area of child rearing, because shockingly, the child has rights too

It's good that your true colours are starting to show.



Now are you saying that there's absolutely no way that someone reading the bible could come the the conclusion that 'God hates fags'? The bible totally supports a homosexual lifestyle and anyone who reads the bible and comes to an opposite conclusion is delusional completely misreading the text?

Please explain what difference the lack of a vagina (or in the other case the lack of a penis) in a one of the child's parents could possibly make to the child? Which of the child's rights is being broken? The right to equal numbers of male and female genitals in one's guardians?

Countless children have been brought successfully up by single parents, institutions and same sex couples. Your "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN" objection is a pathetic position most likely because you feel somewhat guilty about your irrational homophobia and have used this 'issue' to rationalise your bigotry in your own mind. Pathetic.

Because if you raise a child with a Christian mother and father, absolutely nothing can go wrong?
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Parents-of-tortured-children-fled.3705763.jp

Hivemind187

pH wrote: »

Right. Let me be the judge of when one of you god-botherers 'owns' Robin.

lol ... you deserve stars for that.

From a cursory reading of this thread I think Dades has hit the nail on the head. This was a set up by someone with a clear agenda and prepared answers to the questions he posed.

Notice how their is no question available for the scientific principals of reciprocal altruism (insofar as it is a testable hypothesis).

Morality (in my considered but humble opinion) is a total sodding waste of time and energy anyway. When you examine morality from any perspective the only common thread to it is that it contains an emotional imperative. In that "I feel revulsion at murder therefore murder must be wrong" manner.

Look at the following as examples of things that have been deemed immoral

Murder
Rape
Theft
Abuse

Ok ... so most people would agree with these as being immoral, most human beings share a similar revulsion towards murder, rape etc when not under the influence of external factors such as religion, politics or any other hysteria inducing things (drugs, alcohol etc). Further, these can be called unethical in most systems of thics regardless of how loosely they are applied. Now look at these other issues:

Homosexuality.
Racism.
Liberalism.
Abortion.
Drinking.
Substance abuse.
Being an athiest.

In each of these cases the cry of "morality" has been heard to bellow. Yet each and every one of them, when emotion is removed from the equation, becomes acceptable.

The reason is that morals, for the most part, are based on emotional reactions. Near as I can figure anyway.