Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You confuse the question of why people do the right thing with what the right thing is.
Invoking God does not automatically free your position of subjectivity. What about God-given morality would solve all the problems you pose?If there is no God, everything, from any interpretation, to any definition or moral is completely in existence because those who are in charge wish it to be so. If a group has the belief that their sole purpose was to kill, what is wrong with what they are doing? We may say their acts are illogical, but aren't all acts? What is it about theft or murder that makes them inherently wrong or right? Or is there nothing?
There is a robust body of literature on evolutionary altruism. Perhaps this requires its own thread?Are the social inhibitions just a logical conclusion? If so what makes people turn against great odds to try to save others at great risk to themselves or maybe a larger group of people? Human "nature?"
Sorry, but you're wrong. I don't intend to give you a lesson in cosmology or the scientific method. I do suggest that you should look them up. You'll see there is nothing religious about it. Re telling people how they should live: There are rules and laws in every society. Being a part of society (ie; a group), and following the rules and laws of society, doesn't mean society is a religion.If an Atheist is part of a group of some kind that either tells the group the nature of the universe and its set-up and/or how one should live, the group is a religion. It is my conjecture that one does not even have to be aware of such a set up.I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that if an atheist is part of a group of some kind, then that group becomes the atheist's religion?
First of all, the universe is not unknowable. We just don't know everything about it... yet. As to the rest, 1) I don't know how many people don't believe in god(s). 2) Yes, people do rely on themselves and others for the whatevers in life. 3) To me, being a "good person" is beneficial to myself and others. None of this necessarily leads to religion.How many people believe that there is no God, a person must rely on his or herself for anything in life, the universe is unknowable and that one should be a "good person?" These are the beginning of a religion.
Omnitheism is the belief that all religions contain a core recognition of the same god. So, no, in and of itself, omnitheism is not a religion. Anyway, this is irrelevant to me since I have no belief in the existence of any god(s).Consider omnitheism... is it not a religion? There may not be nearly any structure in it, books or many communities... But they most likely share many major common indicators on the nature of the universe and humanity.
You're free to use whatever definition of 'religion' that you'd like. However, when I disagree, or think you're being intellectually dishonest in your use of the word, I'm just as free to say so. Why do you think you need a "God or higher power", whose very existence cannot be confirmed, to dictate your morality to you?You may define religion however you would like. The majority of the definitions of religion, to be completely impartial, say "Esp. Higher power" or something of the like. These would imply that religion can exist without the need for a higher power. If we are to use the connotation of words, why don't we all support the suggestion to use the "devil's dictionary?" Does anyone else love the irony of how much agreeing upon a religion is like agreeing upon morals? The only measure of what is correct or not we have without a God or higher power is what the majority believes.The definition of 'religion' that you've chosen to use doesn't go deep enough into what is generally thought of when discussing religion. As it is commonly used, 'religion' is best defined by the first 3, but mostly the 1st and 3rd, examples below.
"...ecular humanism is necessarily non-religious. This doesn't mean that secular humanists are anti-religious -- there is a difference between non-religion and anti-religion. Although secular humanists are certainly critical of religion in its vaious guises, the central point of being non-religious simply means that it has nothing to do with spiritual, religious, or ecclesiastical doctrines, beliefs, or power structures."Secular humanism would necessarily like to consider itself non-religious and align itself with "science."
There's nothing ironic here. It's a matter of available choices. No atheist defines atheism as "faith" in the religious sense of the word.Here I would also like to mention the irony that if you were to hold your mouse up to many users of CC you would read "Faith: Atheist" or "Faith: Humanist."
Possibly true.
Feeling "good" about doing something is a very inaccurate indication that such an action is "right", so there's obviously more to it than that.
We'll come back to that.
So why does it feel "good" to do the right thing?
I'd argue that sometimes it actually doesn't, but that's by the by.
Human beings are equipped with a superego. It can be incredibly emotionally painful to disobey it egregiously. People are also equipped with empathy, and to ignore it can be agonising while to embrace it can be deeply pleasurable and satisfying.
Hello Cantata; I missed you yesterday
Now we're getting down to it!
I am guessing that you are an atheist (I don't really want to get bogged down in the definition of that for now) and so I am further assuming that any explanation of any natural phenomena by you would have to be a naturalistic or materialistic explanation. Am I right?
Now let's take the very first sentence of the quote above. Is there a naturalistic explanation for the super-ego? Do all people have it?
Could it not be argued that Freud (or his translator James Strachey) by coining this phrase, was just putting a new name to a very ancient concept which other (and in my opinion much better) thinkers had called simply "conscience"? Freud added some new stuff about fear of castration and whatnot but I personally think his addenda were unecessary. And complete bollocks ;-).
Let's consider empathy. Lots has been said regarding the naturalist or materialistic explanation of why we have empathy. I'd be interested in hearing your views on this.
I have major problems with the common biological explanations of altruism. Not because there are no good genetic arguments for it, but rather what these arguments tell us about the nature of empathy itself.
No, the only thing all atheists have in common is lacking belief in any god concepts.All atheists believe, as I understand, that morality can be developed without the need for religion as part of their reject of religion.
In the same way as with a religion, but without ascribing them to the god of your choice.How are morals determined however, without a "religion?"
What an individual believes to be right or wrong (as well as what an individual believes his god to determine right or wrong) is dependent on this person´s definitions and values.Isn't what is right or wrong totally dependent on our definitions and what the populous believes?
No, let´s not use it.Let's use this definition of Religion from the Random House Unabridged dictionary:
Well, it is. The word describes the lack of belief in any god concepts.Atheism is not well-defined,
No, why would they?but wouldn't, as a group, atheist agree on what is moral or immoral and what should be legal or illegal?
By the same virtue that a theist determines that the god of his choice - whom he beliefs to share his moral ideas - exists: his own opinion and convictions.As part of my religion murder is immoral. By what virtue would an atheist or group of atheists determine the same except through accepting it as true?
Isn´t what what "truth" is?Isn't that what "truth" is?
No problem, you´re welcome.Thank you for your ideas, your time, and most of all your respect toward others.
To be accurate, an atheist only lacks a belief in the existance of a God. That doesn't preclude the atheist from believing in the supernatural.I am guessing that you are an atheist (I don't really want to get bogged down in the definition of that for now) and so I am further assuming that any explanation of any natural phenomena by you would have to be a naturalistic or materialistic explanation. Am I right?
To be accurate, an atheist only lacks a belief in the existance of a God. That doesn't preclude the atheist from believing in the supernatural.
Moralities, like languages, (and religions, for that matter) are cultural products: not utterly random, but intersubjective. That's why you may find cultures where it's considered immoral to bare your teeth while laughing, or highly offensive to expose your naked nose to public view. Which leads us straight to the second question:All atheists believe, as I understand, that morality can be developed without the need for religion as part of their reject of religion. How are morals determined however, without a "religion?"
Absolutely! Yet, in spite of peculiarities like the ones mentioned above, most - but not all - moralities agree on most rules that make a peaceful and productive co-existence within a social group possible: don't steal from a clan-mate; don't kill your neighbour - in short, don't disrupt the internal coherence of the group you belong to. These "basics" are not an exclusively human trait, by the way. Pretty much every social species out there adheres to these principles, punishing transgressors in order to maintain peace within the group.Isn't what is right or wrong totally dependent on our definitions and what the populous believes?
Atheism is not well-defined, but wouldn't, as a group, atheist agree on what is moral or immoral and what should be legal or illegal?
As part of my religion murder is immoral. By what virtue would an atheist or group of atheists determine the same except through accepting it as true? Isn't that what "truth" is?
Thank you for your ideas, your time, and most of all your respect toward others.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?