I don’t obey religious doctrine, but I’ve known several people that were heavily religious. I think that we both see our lives very differently.
The religious person has a set of doctrines to live under. He has an algorithm for what is safe and not safe to do (afterlife wise). So long as he has mastered the system of his doctrines, all of his actions are acceptable within that margin. His work ethic is affected. He is loyal, conservative, in his actions to a specific guideline put out. Beyond that guideline is irrelevant. God did not say his soul is in jeopardy for drag racing drunk at 4 am. So there is no reason not to if he feels like it.
In many ways I envy this religious person. I can’t feel capable of obliging myself to duties that I’m convinced are arbitrary. I feel motivated to change everything about the world because “god” has no plan for it. I start to wonder if there would have been more progress, more psychological stability, if I had just embraced a few lies and been this person.
Morality transcends religion, despite what the religious think. 99% of morality is secular; the other 1% is for the nut-jobs looking to get into heaven or put people in hell.
it’s because christian morality isn’t born in a vacuum, it’s a reflection of human morality. the bible was invented somehow. and christians who believe god will punish them if they do something are likely to believe it’s wrong for their own reasons otherwise. and christians select which things in the bible they want to focus on. for example, many of them hate homosexuals (like many atheists), but god hates shrimp, and nobody ever focuses on that. (also see jesusisaliberal.org/2005/10/ … adian.html). and atheists are likely to adopt some of their morality from puritanism (such as negative ideas about sex) whether they’re aware of it or not.
I think homosexual is precedent to shrimp because eating shrimp isn’t a moral decision. I would hope God doesn’t like disco, either, but if he doesn’t should we look for 50 yearold fat guys wearing leisure suits and stone them?
Whether or not atheists and christians have anything in common at all is secondary to the fact that their views shape how they reflect reality. Does it really matter that being militantly opposed to worship is a different vehicle making the same effect?
I think it easier to say “we decided we don’t like you, piss off” and leave it at that. Rapists fuck women against their will, but people who fuck willingly can, over time, seek to tie a person down, and depending on how you go about this it can be to the complimenting party’s detriment. The only thing that makes rape worse is how it matters to our society. Any real sufferance is in part of the victim.
Perhaps, if you do indeed care, you can try fence-sitting and see how quickly your ass goes numb.
Maybe, atheism isn’t a moral stance though it sometimes implies secular humanism.
Believing arbitrary morals due to superstition/fear do not equate basing moral thought around suffering and human values. Though atheism isn’t a moral stance, no more than disbelief in dragons is.
Its what they have instead, its hardly equivilent or even comparable to rational thought.
This maybe is true, but those are personal philosophies not neccesarily connected.
I don’t see it other then to compare and say they have different beliefs, i don’t see much similiarity though.
No because its not based on faith or belief in supernatural creators, humanism is just simply a value for human life/human suffering. Its a moral philosophy, no one claimed it was a science, but its certainly no religion.
Humanism isn’t an empirical claim or proposition, its a moral position held for whatever reason.
Though I think a good arguement can be made (for empirical reasons) why its so much superior to religion or nonsense philosophy.
Quit being a dim-wit. Religion is a byproduct of our adaptations, humanism is a byproduct of our adaptions, one doesn’t spawn the other, and if anything morality spawned religion because animal morality exists outside of the type of self-awareness needed to create religion.
Once again babies show sign of moral behavior without ever having the self-awareness to concieve religion. MORALITY PRE-DATES RELIGION BECAUSE MORALITY EXISTS IN ANIMALS BEFORE SELF-AWARENESS, and it did in our ancestors, too.
Its just not the case though. (many morals or moral codes exist in religion) but they are not the spawning place.
Epathy towards a poor or starving person, the ability to realize other people hbave emotions/sensations like you, the social evolution of humans, this is all responsible for the moral foundation upon which religions can be built.
Through religion people can take arbitrary morals seriously, but it didn’t create morality. The golden rule pre-existed religion because its required for a human group to exist in any stable way at all. AS in, chimps couldn’t hunt successfully without concepts of fairness/morality (however unconsciously applied) as the animal gets smarter its going to have a concept of real morality before it has one of religion, because religion is produced by a netsum of adaptations (by product of such).
morality comes about before the ability to think of your past, and your future, and think of potential situations to avoid, religion, doesn’t.
I am not up on the terminology of atheistic moralism so I would appreciate a little description into the three phrases abouve just for my own personal education. But I get the jist of what your saying, and I totally agree, my understanding is your religion doesnt make you an asshole otherwise all atheists, christians, Jews, whatever, would all be what the norm considers “Bad people” but looking at nobel job paths, (things like, care workers, aid workers, conservation officers etc) we know that they come from a range of different backgrounds and belifes.
To me its these people who should be grouped together, whatever their religious background. Whats important is not who we belive in its what we belive in
