Atheist ethics, atheist values

[JediMobius]

As the author of this thread I would prefer responses that are as close as possible to the questions in the OP, and would like everyone to make new threads for issues that don´t have much more in common with the OP than merely being related to ethics and morality as a whole topic. Just saying. Thanks.

My bad, I'll stop.

But I will say this, in case you change your mind about how close the subject is to the OP. That is, whether or not ethics and morality (what I consider the moral law) hinge on a divine authority directly affects my thoughts on your first request.

1. Please tell me more about the values and ethics I have to hold in order to be a "true atheist", in your opinion. I just want to know them (and I won´t discuss them) - I mean I always appreciate it when people tell me what I think.

Then again, a 'universal' moral law doesn't necessarily hinge on a divine authority, but only changes what is contained in the moral law. So, whatever n whatnot. . . as you say, so it shall be.

 

[lisah]

If one cannot do better than religion then atheism seems the obvious alternative ... religion thus give God a bad name ...

Certainly worth quoting, and repeating.


I can find nothing better to say on the subject. All my thoughts are summed up in this quote.

 

[stranger]

Certainly worth quoting, and repeating.

Hi , glad you are finding your 'voice' at last

I can find nothing better to say on the subject. All my thoughts are summed up in this quote.

Perhaps you missed the 'punchline' then ?
I put in poetry because it seems more appropriate to this aspect of the theme of the thread, life's 'ethics', 'values' , whether love is manifest from self [as in atheism perhaps?]... or manifest 'despite' the [illusion of] self :-

The 'Trees':

Beyond the veil
the symbols true
they tell a tale,
known to a few...

to me they call
of the stalwart mind
in face of fall of
man un-kind...

and who be good?
... as stand and die
in multitude
astride the lie?

before the flood
for love of life
for sake of blood
before the strife?

How can the people
still not see,
does it not heap
our misery?

we , blinded by the fuss,
not chance,
the message bids us
join the dance-

to know what is not,
now, to love
Pied Piper
his the tune,
no dove...

and few resist
but last and lame
alone desist
afore the flame...

'Trees' still they try
and bid His love
can never die
as from 'above'.

 

[Wyzaard]

The idea stems from the notion that there is no god and thus the highest judge that we have is ourselves.

Morality becomes more relative.

To societies laws and mores, sure.

People are not held accountable for their actions in the long run.

Societies hold their individual members accountable during their lives, which can indeed be a "long run" where prison is concerned.

Why not maximize the amount of physical pleasure one can attain?

If it doesn't negatively effect others... "why not" indeed; if it DOES harm others though, our collective society passes judgment on such matters.

And what would be the evil in engaging in sex starting at very young ages? It is a mere physical action and anything else attached to it would simply be superstitious.

Except for that "healthy, informed consent" thing.

Really, the only value that we have, if there is no god, is whatever value we attach to other things. We can be our own kings and do whatever we feel and set our own boundaries.

Ummm... where are the "people" in your straw-man?

 

[rosenherman]

These threads always end up with "You can't prove it!!" And "neither can you." We're all so stuck in our views, and they are so diametrically opposed that nothing is ever accomplished except snarky snipes.

 

[flicka]

Is it possible that some who are born into a life of religious morals never get the chance to develop morals of their own? Maybe it's a use-it-or-loose-it type of exercise people are supposed to go through but some get stunted.

 

[Wyzaard]

These threads always end up with "You can't prove it!!" And "neither can you."

Theists are the ones who make these sorts of baseless claims, whereas atheists do not; there is no parity here.

We're all so stuck in our views, and they are so diametrically opposed that nothing is ever accomplished except snarky snipes.

There are no "diametrically opposed" views here... only ones that have been supported, and those which have not.

 

[stranger]

These threads always end up with "You can't prove it!!" And "neither can you." We're all so stuck in our views, and they are so diametrically opposed that nothing is ever accomplished except snarky snipes.

Not everyone here agrees with you [LOL?]

Not everyone here is angry about not understanding life , patience is a better way really...

Thus not everyone here gets 'snarky' [and worse]... some may even come to know why others do so, and even sympathise ...

As for 'proof' , there is proof , promised eventually to all, that is not actually what causes the disarray ...

Instead the 'fray' may be understood slightly more deply in terms of the limitation of phenomenologies in this world, the denial of some experiences as 'invalid' to one's 'belief system ...

thus one can show that 'one' can 'prove' it [even without words] , but people mostly will not wait patiently to listen , even to their own life ...

 

[stranger]

Is it possible that some who are born into a life of religious morals never get the chance to develop morals of their own? Maybe it's a use-it-or-loose-it type of exercise people are supposed to go through but some get stunted.

'Religious morals' may be amongst those most distasteful because perhaps arrogance, inconsistency, hypocrisy which seem to find a stronger hold in religious phenomenologies [e.g, sinners telling other sinners that they will 'burn in hell for eternity' for sin so stop it !]

... but inventing one's own morality doesn't mean that one can keep it either, nor does doing so make it necessarily consistent with one's phenomenology , nor is one's phenomenology likely to embrace all phenomena in ones life, let alone that of others...

In short this is not a distinction between atheists and religionists , [but imho according to my own current still-limited phenomenology having worked as far as currently able to make it consistent with all phenomena of every kind in my life ] , it is a distinction between those very few who know love and those who do not ... I do not pretend to acknowledge all love for all ,but it seems worth continuing to work at in every way I know , and nothing else 'computes ' with me .. thus I find that both religion and atheism miss the point about life [and I at least think perhaps I know why]

love is very much a use-it-or-lose-it phenomena , but losing it is not confined to religion [just look into Sartre's eyes in a photo if you don't believe me ]

 

[lisah]

Hi , glad you are finding your 'voice' at last
Perhaps you missed the 'punchline' then ?

I often miss punchlines.

I put in poetry because it seems more appropriate to this aspect of the theme of the thread, life's 'ethics', 'values' , whether love is manifest from self [as in atheism perhaps?]... or manifest 'despite' the [illusion of] self :-

I have met a woman who is the first person I've ever known who is atheist-raised, or perhaps I should say raised with no religious framework...and little bible knowledge.

From knowing her I have an "idea" that love is "life's breath", or could be called the "breath of life" or "of God"...which has no bounds (aside from those we place on it in expression, which is often a shame, I know).

This is a relatively new thought for me. As to its value, I can not say...
Well, maybe not so new...just that its been a while since I've thought of such things, which always brings along with it a newness of spirit.

[Very Good to see you ]

 

[stranger]

I often miss punchlines.
I have met a woman who is the first person I've ever known who is atheist-raised, or perhaps I should say raised with no religious framework...and little bible knowledge.

From knowing her I have an "idea" that love is "life's breath", or could be called the "breath of life" or "of God"...which has no bounds (aside from those we place on it in expression, which is often a shame, I know).

This is a relatively new thought for me. As to its value, I can not say...
Well, maybe not so new...just that its been a while since I've thought of such things, which always brings along with it a newness of spirit.

[Very Good to see you ]

Good to see you again too, ... I won't ask what painful places you likely have been [been there , learned about that , not going back]

I would say that you are indeed blessed to know someone like that , times are coming on hard and knowing life from the love within makes it possible to live and love through the worst ...

the choice is not between religion and atheism ,but between both those an love [which Jesus said shows us God ... but it matters not if one makes an association to the God of scripture , the important thing is love ... and one either does it [and comes more alive] or not , it matters not what one professes, it is what one does that counts ... a loving atheist can thus be obeying Christ without even knowing what the Messiah is [as indeed many Christians in fact do not know what the Messiah of Israel is , let alone what the new covenant actually says or why Israel's remnant few must be first]... one does not need scripture to be a saint , but if one does use it then it would make more sense surely [?] to read it carefully and make sure one understands it before professing belief (or disbelief!) in it]

thus misunderstanding scripture gets in the way of the religious , and seemingly paradoxically, turning against religion one may discover love, the spirit of truth about life [which I call God, as does scripture]

So thankyou indeed for providing an independent example of the point I was trying to make about atheist values and ethics... and for wrestling with and finally getting the 'punchline' of my argument here.

 

[rosenherman]

Theists are the ones who make these sorts of baseless claims, whereas atheists do not; there is no parity here.

The parity is absolute. You can't convince them, they can't convince you.

There are no "diametrically opposed" views here... only ones that have been supported, and those which have not.

The support or lack are in the eye of the reader/believer/non-believer. And how can "God exists" and "there is no God" not be diametrically opposed?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The parity is absolute. You can't convince them, they can't convince you.



The support or lack are in the eye of the reader/believer/non-believer. And how can "God exists" and "there is no God" not be diametrically opposed?

Atheists doesn't say "I believe gods don't exist", but rather "I don't believe gods exist". Well, some affirm the nonexistence of gods, but they're crazy people .

 

[Belk]

These threads always end up with "You can't prove it!!" And "neither can you." We're all so stuck in our views, and they are so diametrically opposed that nothing is ever accomplished except snarky snipes.

That's why they are so fun

 

[Wyzaard]

The parity is absolute. You can't convince them, they can't convince you.

No... they have made claims they have not and/or cannot support, and we have not.

The support or lack are in the eye of the reader/believer/non-believer.

No... the rules for supporting claims are well-established; atheists tend to follow them... theists tend to look for excuses.

And how can "God exists" and "there is no God" not be diametrically opposed?

The former requires support... the latter is the default; things only exist when they have been shown to exist.

 

[stranger]

things only exist when they have been shown to exist.

You have not shown that this universe exists in the sense that God exists , and in fact one can prove that it doesn't [because God is timeless] ... thus you have not excluded the possibility that this which you assume without proof to be real is really just a virtual reality , an illusion, an imagined thing by God , something that is not possible, but can be imagined ... in fact must be imagined ...

 

[ragarth]

Disclaimer: didn't read the preceding 53 pages.

The term atheism says as much about ethics and morals as the term theism. In either case there is no structure for the justification or condemnation of murder or twinkies because neither say anything about murder or twinkies. Atheism and theism are super-classes.

To say anything about ethics and morals you must look into the subclasses of these superclasses. Humanism (a form of atheism) says something about murder as does christianity (a form of theism). Therefore if you're comparing morals it's best to compare humanism and christianity. Since atheism and theism say nothing about morals and ethics, comparing christianity to atheism is comparing apples and oranges. It means nothing.

 

[stranger]

Disclaimer: didn't read the preceding 53 pages.

No better than Christians who can't be bothered to read scripture then?

The term atheism says as much about ethics and morals as the term theism. In either case there is no structure for the justification or condemnation of murder or twinkies because neither say anything about murder or twinkies. Atheism and theism are super-classes.

That doesn't a priori exclude any commonality within the super-class

To say anything about ethics and morals you must look into the subclasses of these superclasses.

Not necessarily...

Humanism (a form of atheism) says something about murder as does christianity (a form of theism).

Humanism does imply atheism , and modern Christianity of sinners worships the words of sinners [which is why its divided, not one truth] so it cannot really be regarded as a theism , it has no 'god' except men, like atheism.

Therefore if you're comparing morals it's best to compare humanism and christianity.

Or admit that all morality is relative subjective illusionism ,as is finally being realised more widely in Phlosophy after millenia of hot air :-

host.uniroma3.it/docenti/decaro/decaro_freedom_mystery.pdf

Since atheism and theism say nothing about morals and ethics, comparing christianity to atheism is comparing apples and oranges. It means nothing.

[Besides that apples and oranges are both fruits and one can compare fruits very easily ] atheism and moder christianity have much in common in what they say about morals and ethics, more is the pity... some have moved on to a deeper level of phenomenology which explains both these phenomena instead of treating them as distinct or incompatible , but just different forms of [inconsisent] denial common in human beings saying nothing about God except that He deludes human beings for a time.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 ... God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

[Tinker Grey]

Humanism does imply atheism ,

Never heard of Christian Humanism?

 

[stranger]

Christian humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Ain't the web a wonderful thing, one can find out all sorts of things that one hadn't known about before ? [truth and lies ... no change there ]