Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK, I do not want to offend anyone here but I need to understand where Atheism draws its moral code from. Mine is from Biblical Law, no need to discuss that part. Know that I realize that you don't have to follow Biblical Law to have morals or be moral and a good person.
So, is there any actual doctrine or rules, etc.?
Again, I am just trying to understand what Atheism is, not convert myself nor condemn it. It helps me to understand people a little better when I understand their belief system and there are some people that I need to understand. Thank you for your help.
OK, I do not want to offend anyone here but I need to understand where Atheism draws its moral code from. Mine is from Biblical Law, no need to discuss that part. Know that I realize that you don't have to follow Biblical Law to have morals or be moral and a good person.
emphasis added...
Why? Even if Atheism has a specific distinct moral code (it doesn't, but more on that later...), why is it critical to understand a given viewpoint's philosophical underpinnings? Do you understand the theological foundation of Mahayana Buddhism or the Sikh faith? It is certainly an interesting exercise to learn and to understand others, but in actual practice it really is not so important to a peaceful respectful coexistence and dialog...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
So, is there any actual doctrine or rules, etc.?
Short answer, no there is no doctrine or rules. To be an atheist is to lack a belief in a god or gods. Period. That is all.
Now individual atheists have viewpoints on questions about morality, what it means to know something, humanity's purpose, and all the other "big questions" in life. Some embrace specific approaches like Secular Humanism, Ethical Culture, or Freethought. Some embrace religion in a non-theistic way, as a non-theistic Friend (Quaker), a Unitarian Universalist, a Buddhist, or even a Satanist might. Some believe that there are no gods, only aliens ( i.e. Raëlianism). I personally tend toward a Pragmatic Epicureanism, but even that is not a really good label, it is just a starting point.
The only constant that can be directly linked to Atheism is a lack of belief in a god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
Again, I am just trying to understand what Atheism is, not convert myself nor condemn it. It helps me to understand people a little better when I understand their belief system and there are some people that I need to understand. Thank you for your help.
If you need to understand specific people, trying to understand a generalized worldview is not going to help. I would not presume to understand you by learning about Vizio or Eusebius. I would talk to you about it. Because even though you may fit into a larger doctrinal category, the taxonomy of belief and philosophy is a post hoc exercise. We put people in categories of belief based on the best fit, your "category" does not dictate your beliefs.
My moral code is derived from a general combination of the liberty of the individual, balanced with how the individual's actions affect others, as well obligations addressed in the idea of the social contract.
For example, this moral code leads me to conclude that slavery is an abomination. Please note that no honest reading of the Bible is going to lead to that conclusion. And yet Bible-centered folks would agree with my assessment of slavery. The fact is that they sell themselves short when they insist that they cannot decide if something is good or bad without first consulting favorite book.
Where in the Bible is democracy, the concept that government needs the consent of the governed? Or that the legal equality of the races and genders is of high importance? Where is freedom of speech?
Nowhere.
The list goes on and on, there being all all manner of things that the Bible does not address, even generally. All of us who cherish such things, the atheist and the Bible-fixated alike, derive our embrace of these concepts ultimately out what we know makes us happy, and of empathy - the idea that our desires and needs are models for what we should ensure that others also have.
Of course, there are those who reason out the notion that, for example, slavery is wrong. They then go to the Bible and find nebulous phrases which they insist are anti-slavery passages, all the while creatively 'reinterpreting' the myriad passages that tacitly condone and in some cases explicitly instruct the implementation of the institution. They may even fool themselves into thinking that the Bible led them to their position on slavery, when in reality the position came first and they then engaged in the requisite mental contortions to convince themselves that the biblical instruction came first.
I can't speak for other atheists, but my moral code basically stems from the concept of empathy. I treat other people how I want to be treated. When making a decision, I focus on the harm or good it will do to other sentient beings and valuable institutions and weigh it against the harm or good it will do to me, realizing that my wants are, broadly speaking, superseded by others' rights and needs. And really, upon entering any situation or interaction, I seek to lead with kindness and add to the balance of good in the world. I would rather interacting with me boost someone's day than bring it down.
To sum up my personal values, I'll put it this way: Don't be a dick.
I'm going out on a limb here, but all Atheists carry a secret Atheist Handbook defining doctrines, rules, codes etc.
It's the duty of the Atheist to memorize the book and quote from it whenever they are engaged in a discussion with a believer. Whenever an Atheist is confronted with a new situation, he or she can turn to the handbook to determine the appropriate course of action. Most Atheists won't admit to this because they have taken a vow of secrecy.
I have already said too much...........oh no, someone is at the door......
I'm going out on a limb here, but all Atheists carry a secret Atheist Handbook defining doctrines, rules, codes etc.
It's the duty of the Atheist to memorize the book and quote from it whenever they are engaged in a discussion with a believer. Whenever an Atheist is confronted with a new situation, he or she can turn to the handbook to determine the appropriate course of action. Most Atheists won't admit to this because they have taken a vow of secrecy.
I have already said too much...........oh no, someone is at the door......
My life has been a mixture of good and bad moral behavior. I've never made any attempt to codify it, I like to retain the flexibility to adjust to the situation at hand.
Take a moral concept such as jury nullification, the practice where a jury ignores the law in favor of what they perceive as a greater justice. On the one hand you may argue that if the law is not followed, you may as well not have the law. On the other you may argue that the law is just our tool for seeking justice and we cannot permit an injustice in the name of servicing the tool we crafted to try and establish justice.
Both arguments make sense, both are correct. Historically there are examples of applications of jury nullification which meet my approval, e.g. the northern juries which refused to convict anyone of violating the Fugitive Slave law. There have also been examples where I thought it went awry...the O.J. Simpson verdict.
So rather than having a moral code which decides to class jury nullification as morally good or morally bad, my approach is to apply whatever interpretation best fits whatever circumstances have been presented to me. I could go either way depending upon which course of action struck me as best serving the cause of justice and fairness to those on trial.
I think everyone already agrees that crimes against persons or property are immoral, after that things get fuzzy and rigid rules become less helpful.
Thank you. I suspected after posting that there would be diversity. I was happy to see the Golden Rule in play. I had read before that 8 major religions had their own version of that. I think if is more just a respective rule for mankind rather than specific to any organized thing.
I am endlessly curious about everything. I was brought up a Christian but after a lot of study and time, I dropped that but not God. I read quite a bite on Buddhism.
The only thing I remember in my life regarding Atheism is when the lady in the 1960s and we saw it on TV in school was trying to stop prayer in school. Pretty hazy in my mind now but it was quite something in those days if you can imagine which unless you are older, you couldn't.
Thanks again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
