Moral obligations for atheists (born, Christianity, sin, blessing)
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.
I believe that is religion based on a non-deity. It sounds a lot like an attenuated fire and brimstone type sermon. Nothing wrong with that as long as you do not try to persecute, discriminate, or oppress others.
Ayn Rand said that form of morality and altruism is OK if that is what you want to do. However, the need of others should not be a mortgage for life on those that take care of themselves.
All you are saying is: "My religion is better than yours".
Atheism is not a religion and there is no obligation to be highly moral.
I'm not saying anything is better than something else. I'm saying that the obligation of a citizen is to be moral. The obligation of a good person is to be moral. Atheists should feel it's the right thing to do. Believers add to that it is God wanting us to do that. They have been convinced by their religion that it is the reason for their good deeds when in truth they do good deeds because they are a good person.
In my youth I read all of Ayn Rand books and would not quote them . She had some really bad ideas and is loved by conservatives because they mistake what she said.
I'm not saying anything is better than something else. I'm saying that the obligation of a citizen is to be moral. The obligation of a good person is to be moral. Atheists should feel it's the right thing to do. Believers add to that it is God wanting us to do that. They have been convinced by their religion that it is the reason for their good deeds when in truth they do good deeds because they are a good person.
I admire what you have written regarding moral values, but make no mistake your words are not that different than what Jesus said in the Sermon of the Mount.
Quote:
In my youth I read all of Ayn Rand books and would not quote them . She had some really bad ideas and is loved by conservatives because they mistake what she said.
Ayn Rand grew under communist oppression and her ideas are a reaction to that system.
Here is most of the quote.
“Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence".
You see helping others as an obligation:
Assume you get elected to run a nation and you mandate citizens to pay for those that cannot take care of themselves. One could say you are imposing your morality on others. I go farther: The idea that we have a moral duty to take care of others is religion that is not based on a deity. Granted, I will also say it could also be biology as in some instances altruism had evolutionary advantages.
I admire what you have written regarding moral values, but make no mistake your words are not that different than what Jesus said in the Sermon of the Mount.
Ayn Rand grew under communist oppression and her ideas are a reaction to that system.
Here is most of the quote.
“Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence".
You see helping others as an obligation:
Assume you get elected to run a nation and you mandate citizens to pay for those that cannot take care of themselves. One could say you are imposing your morality on others. I go farther: The idea that we have a moral duty to take care of others is religion that is not based on a deity. Granted, I will also say it could also be biology as in some instances altruism had evolutionary advantages.
Yes if I was Prime Minister tax dollars would go to help others , just like they have for decades. Crime rates, health costs and other factors make it an economical decision. I am fully aware of Ayn Rands background . And the enemies of her protagonists were not the government but self appointed people who thought they knew best but had no responsibility for their actions, especially in The Fountainhead. But as I said I would not quote her writing, her writings were of extremes?
I am sure if I made an effort I could find similar words to mine written before Christ or in places where the writer lived prior to hearing of him. They are, I think, common sense ideas. A selfish society eventually collapses. Even the Painted Dog of Africa will look after Weekes members of the pack who in term help out in what they can. (personally observations by Brian Keating, former outreach director of Calgary Zoo)
I admire what you have written regarding moral values, but make no mistake your words are not that different than what Jesus said in the Sermon of the Mount.
Ayn Rand grew under communist oppression and her ideas are a reaction to that system.
Here is most of the quote.
“Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence".
You see helping others as an obligation:
Assume you get elected to run a nation and you mandate citizens to pay for those that cannot take care of themselves. One could say you are imposing your morality on others. I go farther: The idea that we have a moral duty to take care of others is religion that is not based on a deity. Granted, I will also say it could also be biology as in some instances altruism had evolutionary advantages.
That's not religion. That's just humans behaving humanely. Most people call that moral behavior.
Yes if I was Prime Minister tax dollars would go to help others , just like they have for decades.
It is a religion that is not based on a deity. By the same token some other person may want to establish a nation where there are no taxes and the help to others would only come from charity. And both sides would feel equally strong about their ideas. And one side would likely call the other side a heretic.
Quote:
Crime rates, health costs and other factors make it an economical decision. I am fully aware of Ayn Rands background . And the enemies of her protagonists were not the government but self appointed people who thought they knew best but had no responsibility for their actions, especially in The Fountainhead. But as I said I would not quote her writing, her writings were of extremes?
I agree, what she writes is extreme and anything that is extreme is usually not good.
Quote:
I am sure if I made an effort I could find similar words to mine written before Christ or in places where the writer lived prior to hearing of him. They are, I think, common sense ideas. A selfish society eventually collapses. Even the Painted Dog of Africa will look after Weekes members of the pack who in term help out in what they can. (personally observations by Brian Keating, former outreach director of Calgary Zoo)
According to Robert Sapolsky there are times when the concept of helping others has an evolutionary advantage. For the most part humans are wired to help those people with whom they share DNA. Humans are more inclined to help a brother, a sister, or a cousin in need than an exwife. If we cannot pass DNA at least those related to us can pass DNA. That is the basis of that altruism. The first tribes were built around kinship and it is likely there was plenty of altruism.
Once the tribe got larger not all members share DNA and hence they developed deities to cement the unity of the tribe and to help each other. To this day we rather help a fellow tribesman than a stranger.
There were thousands of religions 2000 years ago, but Christianity put emphasis on helping the poor. More so than other religions. Maybe that was the trick they used to grow the religion. There are several ancient non-biblical writings where morality is emphasized. Here are a few excerpts from the Didach a book that was likely written in the 2nd century AD
Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not deal in magic, thou shalt do no sorcery.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods, thou shalt not perjure thyself, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not speak evil, thou shalt not cherish a grudge, thou shalt not be double-minded nor double-tongued.
Thy word shall not be false or empty, but fulfilled by action.
Thou shalt not be avaricious nor a plunderer nor a hypocrite nor ill- tempered nor proud.
Thou shalt not entertain an evil design against thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not hate any man.
The book goes on and on for ever. Charity is also mentioned at all times. As you said maybe they got these ideas from somewhere else, but at least they wrote them down. These ideas are the archetype of you.
Correct, morality is not one thing, it is both an evolved instinct that allows us to live in groups and also a set of cultural rules.
Unfortunately this leads us to treat those not in our groups differently, based on color, race, gender, religion, nationality, football team, etc.
Fortunately more people are learning we are all part of one group, people, and everyone should be treated the same.
I try to treat everyone the same but the expectations of others will vary so that will create an imbalance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
I admire what you have written regarding moral values, but make no mistake your words are not that different than what Jesus said in the Sermon of the Mount.
Ayn Rand grew under communist oppression and her ideas are a reaction to that system.
Here is most of the quote.
“Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence".
You see helping others as an obligation:
Assume you get elected to run a nation and you mandate citizens to pay for those that cannot take care of themselves. One could say you are imposing your morality on others. I go farther: The idea that we have a moral duty to take care of others is religion that is not based on a deity. Granted, I will also say it could also be biology as in some instances altruism had evolutionary advantages.
That concept of helping others that we don't know may be based on religion but if the practice can't be questioned, then it is also an ideology. There is nothing wrong with either practice but I think it is important to know when something is an ideology and nobody can speak against it.
I try to treat everyone the same but the expectations of others will vary so that will create an imbalance.
The archetype of atheism in the West is based on Judeo-Christian principles.
Quote:
That concept of helping others that we don't know may be based on religion but if the practice can't be questioned, then it is also an ideology. There is nothing wrong with either practice but I think it is important to know when something is an ideology and nobody can speak against it.
If you saw a mugging happening in the street and you had the means to help, I would think you should.
What you think I should do isn't morality. It's simply your personal opinion. This is the fundamental mistake atheists make. I can give you sound reasons why I shouldn't become involved, and they too would merely be my personal opinions. (This is precisely why the law historically doesn't require anyone to become involved in a situation such as you're describing; Good Samaritan laws merely say that if I do choose to become involved, I'll be protected against liability so long as I act reasonably.)
Without an authoritative objective standard, there is no morality. There is only opinion, even if it is a consensus opinion.
It's easy to articulate a Happy Face morality of sorts: Be nice, be tolerant, do no harm, try to achieve the maximum good for the maximum number. Or perhaps even "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
This all sounds good - but without an authoritative objective standard, it's all just opinion. I am free to say "This life is all I have and I'm going to maximize my enjoyment in every possible way even if it's at your expense." On what basis can anyone say this is immoral? Without an authoritative objective standard, the most you can say is "I disagree with you" or perhaps "Civilization would collapse if everyone shared your selfish attitude."
Religion provides the authoritative objective standard. Christian morality doesn't hinge on personal opinion. Even when Christians disagree, they do so in their respective interpretations as to how God's biblical commands apply to a particular situation. When Christians act immorally, even in the name of Christianity, we recognize and condemn this by reference to God's biblical commands.
Other religions may have somewhat different standards of morality, although there is a great deal of overlap. Here the issue isn't which religion is "more moral" or which religion's morality is "better." The issue is simply which religion is true.
It's incongruous for an atheist to attack religion - any religion - as immoral. It's the atheist who really has no morality at all. An atheist may be a wonderfully nice, kind and decent person, but his code of conduct is inevitably a matter of personal or consensus opinion, not morality. If atheists want to adopt consensus opinion as their code, this is a self-imposed standard rather than genuine morality; there is no principled basis on which to say that someone who disagrees is "immoral."
Yes, many atheists, including atheist scholars, insist the above analysis is wrong. One can be (they say) an atheist and a moral person. Morality (they say) doesn't require a god. Christopher Hitchens insisted that everyone has an "internal moral compass." When these arguments are examined closely, you discover that they boil down to the sort of self-imposed Happy Face quasi-morality discussed above. There is no real morality, only personal or consensus opinion, because there is no authoritative objective standard.
I think all beliefs are ultimately underwritten by emotion. It's a miscalculation to think otherwise.
My experience, a lot of atheism is underwritten by an emotional resentment of religion.. which is fair enough. But it's hypocritical when atheists pretend to hold some kind of (exclusive) logical high ground over people who believe in God. Discussion can change everything in life, but it has to come from mutual respect & recognition that we are all emotionally motivated. peace
I partly agree with you. Where I disagree is that atheist's emotional resentment is toward religion. I think the resentment is due to the type of "lording the religion over us" that is done by people like ------- ------. He's a textbook example, and has already done it multiple times today.
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.
