Atheist Vs. Conscience

JCB

"the religious don't have a monopoly on morality" courtesy of Bottle of Smoke.

So I ask, as atheists where does your sense of conscience or morality come from? I.e. How do you tell what is 'right' from what is 'wrong'?

Now i'm not after the 'i don't do bad things to other people' response here, or my friends and family, since both answers really are only manifestations of the original source.

I have provided a poll with some possible choices. They are multiple options in case you have more than one. (hopefully it will be less controversial than my last poll!)

Also, I'm just wondering how these sources influence your opinion with say two issues
(i) Abortion
(ii) Gay Marriage

Especially because at least one of them should never involve you.

Sangre

same as theists, from society, culture, upbringing and peers. i just don't think a god laid down these morals.

JCB

Sangre wrote: »

from society, culture, upbringing and peers

Do you mean a sort of 'I see it around me hence it must be correct' sort of view?
Doesn't seem very informed, almost herd-like.

Child conscience certainly comes from upbringing, but really i refer to adult conscience, where one can reject this e.g. atheists who where raised as theists.

Scofflaw

Largely, from two maxims:

1. that the world, and everything therein, including oneself, is real

2. that to treat what is real as if it were a figment of your pleasure is wrong


cordially,
Scofflaw

Sangre

JCB wrote: »

Do you mean a sort of 'I see it around me hence it must be correct' sort of view?
Doesn't seem very informed, almost herd-like.

Child conscience certainly comes from upbringing, but really i refer to adult conscience, where one can reject this e.g. atheists who where raised as theists.

well i certainly don't make it up as I go along. i'm not going to distanced myself from the herd from the sake of it. Our ethics, morals and social interactions have evolved over thousands of years. i don't intend on revolutionising it in my life time.

DapperGent

Not an atheist/Atari Jaguar etc... etc...

What's the fúcking point of this poll?

I'm going to make a poll too.

Q: Do you believe altruism is an expression of spiritual goodness or a manifestation of enlightened self interest?

1. Jam
2. Gnome
3. Old Trafford
4. Fibre Optic Cable
5. John Steinbeck
6. Marmalade

Zillah

Poll is fail.

eoin5

Not an atheist/Atari Jaguar etc... etc...

I donno, I just kinda have it being human and all. Do I have to get it from somewhere? I think they might have had an offer back in '84 where it came as standard instead of an optional extra.

Whispered

I'm not sure what I am at the moment, I don't believe in a man-like god sitting on a throne in the clouds somewhere, but I do believe in things which we dont understand yet. But I agree with what Sangre said, society, culture, upbringing and peers.

This brings the question of self sacrifice - we have all heard the stories of people risking their lives to save people they dont even know. What in human evolution causes this?

kmick

JCB wrote: »

"the religious don't have a monopoly on morality" courtesy of Bottle of Smoke.So I ask, as atheists where does your sense of conscience or morality come from? I.e. How do you tell what is 'right' from what is 'wrong'?

Now i'm not after the 'i don't do bad things to other people' response here, or my friends and family, since both answers really are only manifestations of the original source.
I have provided a poll with some possible choices. They are multiple options in case you have more than one. (hopefully it will be less controversial than my last poll!)
Also, I'm just wondering how these sources influence your opinion with say two issues
(i) Abortion
(ii) Gay Marriage
Especially because at least one of them should never involve you.

Who says we have any morality?
Do not speak harshly to anybody; those who are spoken to, will answer you in the same way.

Tim Robbins

Not an atheist/Atari Jaguar etc... etc...

I think this is a bit of a stupid poll.
Firstly, are all the options mutually exclusive?
Secondly, are all the options clear and unambiguous?
Thirdly, does this question even make sense? Does it not make more sense to find the answer to this question scientifically, rather than ask people individually?
Finally, has this question already been answered by philosophy and science?

I agree with Hauser, Professor of Pyschology at Harvard University. humans have a moral framework and it is filled, shaped and tweaked by personal experience.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0316728152/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=gateway&qid=1200998525&sr=8-1

People (atheists + theists) have all sorts of strange ideas and messed up explanations for morals. I say consult the experts.
There has been a lot of research done into this, all readily available.

Pompey Magnus

Personal Experience

I get my morality from hundreds of thousands of years of primate evolution as social animals whereby altrusitic / moral behaviour by my ancestors to members of their community yielded a benefit which exceeded the cost of the moral action. No guardian angels or holy books neccessary.

CerebralCortex

Other source ~ please explain

I used to think when I was a theist (which isn't that long ago) that you couldn't have morality with out a supreme being to answer to. But that doesn't work for me now and its difficult to put into words why it doesn't. But I certainly feel more moral now than I ever did when I was a theist.

Pompey Magnus

Personal Experience

CerebralCortex wrote: »

But I certainly feel more moral now than I ever did when I was a theist.

Probably because now when you do a good deed you do so without the hope of reward / fear of punishment.

Wacker

Not an atheist/Atari Jaguar etc... etc...

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I get my morality from hundreds of thousands of years of primate evolution as social animals whereby altrusitic / moral behaviour by my ancestors to members of their community yielded a benefit which exceeded the cost of the moral action. No guardian angels or holy books neccessary.

That's pretty much my point of view as well. There is a wealth of human experience to learn from that can inform our choices, as well as your own observations.

Some of the options on the poll are ridiculous - self help books?!? Also, why have a 'not an atheist' option as well as 'adaptations from religious texts', as I would be shocked if any atheist claims religious trexts are the source of their morality.

CerebralCortex

Other source ~ please explain

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Probably because now when you do a good deed you do so without the hope of reward / fear of punishment.

If anything bizarre punishment constructs nurtured by theistic ideas on morality have had a very negative and destructive affects on me well being and social development (to point where I start using very fancy wordiness )

18AD

Other source ~ please explain

It's possibly my brains "empathy centre" and the realisation that when I'm happy I feel good and so do others.
Group effort. Group benefits.

http://scienceandreason.blogspot.com/2006/02/mirror-neurons.html

Good luck.
AD.

Zillah

helena.ryan wrote: »

I don't believe in a man-like god sitting on a throne in the clouds somewhere, but I do believe in things which we dont understand yet.

What does that mean?

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

JCB, does your conscience come from God (i.e. your soul etc), or do you get your morality from reading the bible?

The way I see it - following scripture indicates no more of a conscience than following legislation. Obeying a law out of fear of punishment doesn't make someone moral. Instead, doing something positive, or not doing something negative you can get away with, suggests morality.

If God did instill us with morality, how come he didn't distribute it evenly?

Actually, doesn't the word morality imply that something has been learned?

Whispered

Zillah, I didn't elaborate on my beliefs in that post but to sum it up quickly. As I said a man-like god on a throne is as ridiculous an idea to me as it is to most athiests, however I do not consider myself athiest as I believe that there is more to life than science can currently explain.

Completly agree with the school of thought that forced morals are not real morals at all. I think morals also can sometimes come from a selfish place TBH, if we do something good, we can feel good about ourselves. Obviously this is not always the case but I do think it can be sometimes.

Perhaps the reason for the "not an athiest" option and "religious texts" options were there because the OP understands that some people, while not believing in God, still draw inspiration from some religious texts. And also maybe he was interested in where thesists believe their morality comes from and so gave them an option too?

aidan24326

Other source ~ please explain

JCB, anyone who takes their morality from the bible would have to be a pretty twisted individual, since it condones murder, rape, stoning, genocide etc etc

Anyone who claims their morality is sourced from the bible is either a)a sick minded person or b)simply hasn't read the bible at all.

I saw a programme on the god channel recently (hey, I was bored) and it was a women's bible club. They were reading passages from the bible and the preacher lady was telling all her willing flock that this book was all they needed, everything was here in this book about how to live your life. The fact that women are treated worse than animals in the bible is a fact that was apparently lost on the fcuking idiots. I didn't know whether to be amused or just embarassed to be from the same species.

Whispered

aidan24326 wrote: »

I saw a programme on the god channel recently (hey, I was bored) and it was a women's bible club. They were reading passages from the bible and the preacher lady was telling all her willing flock that this book was all they needed, everything was here in this book about how to live your life. The fact that women are treated worse than animals in the bible is a fact that was apparently lost on the fcuking idiots. I didn't know whether to be amused or just embarassed to be from the same species.

I dont read the bible, nor do I come from a family who reads the bible but to brand a whole group of people as "fcuking idiots" for believing in something you dont, makes me embarassed to be from the same species tbh. Why is it worse to be a theist who tries to force their opinions on people in an agressive way, than an athiest who does the same? Your attitude really seems to be one of total distaste towards theists. It's all well and good having different beliefs but the way you speak about people there is no better that religious bigots condemning other religions.

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

helena.ryan wrote: »

It's all well and good having different beliefs but the way you speak about people there is no better that religious bigots condemning other religions.

Agreed. I have to say those ladies come out better than you after that post, aidan.

pH

helena.ryan wrote: »

I dont read the bible, nor do I come from a family who reads the bible but to brand a whole group of people as "fcuking idiots" for believing in something you dont, makes me embarassed to be from the same species tbh.

Does it?

Take apartheid for example, if I was to show you a group of people who believe that black people were inferior. And say I called the racist group fúcking idiots would than make you embarrassed to be human?

So not all beliefs need to be respected, and some people are idiots that's just a fact.

While I wouldn't call them idiots, I do sympathise with aidan's point, women embracing Christianity is kind of like turkeys voting for Christmas. Just find and online bible and search for woman - and in all that nasty misogyny see if you can find anything positive for a woman.

Why is it worse to be a theist who tries to force their opinions on people in an agressive way, than an athiest who does the same? Your attitude really seems to be one of total distaste towards theists. It's all well and good having different beliefs but the way you speak about people there is no better that religious bigots condemning other religions.

Have a read about atheists and anger, from a woman no less! Now I know religious types don't think they contribute much and are pretty much possessions of men, but I kind of like them and consider them equals
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

Whispered

pH wrote: »

Does it?
Take apartheid for example, if I was to show you a group of people who believe that black people were inferior. And say I called the racist group fúcking idiots would than make you embarrassed to be human?

Good point, however we are talking about women speaking on a television programme which you dont have to watch if you dont want to. Not all beliefs have to be respected, but if you call someone an idiot just because you dont believe in the same thing as you, then, again I will say it's not better than the other way around. Apartheid is totally different than speaking about your belief on TV. On a channel which is solely for doing just that (I assume from the name)

pH wrote: »

While I wouldn't call them idiots, I do sympathise with aidan's point, women embracing Christianity is kind of like turkeys voting for Christmas. Just find and online bible and search for woman - and in all that nasty misogyny see if you can find anything positive for a woman.

LOL and if a turkey votes for Chritstmas, what harm is he doing to anyone but himself?? Would you also compare that to apartheid?

I completly see aidans point, but I think his agression was a bit misplaced, dont you?

robindch

It's quite easy for somebody here to eff off an entire group of people as dumb, but it's uncalled for and just as importantly, it misses the point comlpetely.

I think it's worth bearing in mind that many of the women in that "bible club" may never have been exposed, or may never have exposed themselves, to an independent point of view, or given any serious consideration to the fact that the bible may not be the nice piece of work that the (mostly male) preachers say that it is.

That's a cultural thing, and I think we should ask ourselves seriously if we'd behave any differently, or even be able to behave any differently, if we'd been brought up from childhood never to question a word that fell from the lips of anybody who's been placed into a position of absolute authority. Most people can't, or won't, as dictator after dictator has no doubt discovered to his joy down the centuries.

Just to document how extreme this can become, Carolyn Jessop, a former member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, had a book published recently about her life in the church and the brainwashing that went on. There were some very, very scary extracts up on the UK's Guardian back in December, but they expired the article. A bit of googling produces the following link, but the text is watered down a bit.

http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-shared-my-husband-with-12-other-wives.html

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

Worthy of another thread perhaps?

Let's stay on thread with this one in the hope JCB can respond to the his responders.

Zillah

helena.ryan wrote: »

Zillah, I didn't elaborate on my beliefs in that post but to sum it up quickly. As I said a man-like god on a throne is as ridiculous an idea to me as it is to most athiests, however I do not consider myself athiest as I believe that there is more to life than science can currently explain.

You're still being very vague. For example, I agree that the following statement is incorrect: "Science has explained everything". Clearly it hasn't. But surely anything it hasn't explain is just a big question mark? Are you saying there is something you believe in that science has not encountered?

Pompey Magnus

Personal Experience

helena.ryan wrote: »

I dont read the bible, nor do I come from a family who reads the bible but to brand a whole group of people as "fcuking idiots" for believing in something you dont, makes me embarassed to be from the same species tbh.

He might have been a little blunt, but I understand where he's coming from. It's like when I see Gay Christian groups, do they not read the Bible? Their God is going to condemn them all to hell but they still adore him. It is cases like this where the Christian shepard and flock analogy really does works. A shephard doesn't tend for his sheep because he loves them, he does so because he plans to fleece them and kill them.

As for the women, they believe in a book which says they are "unclean" during menstration and if someone should touch an unclean woman, or if they touch something that she touches, they themselves become contaminated and they themselves must have a bath. Similarly their God sees them as filthy creatures for 33 days after giving birth to a boy or 66 days after giving birth to a girl.

Their God does does defend them in the case of rape, the guilty man must pay her father a pound of silver and he must marry his victim if she in't already married (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). That said he does allow rape of women children in certain circumstances, for example Moses victory over the Midianites.

As for the New Testament, Jesus forces a woman in an abusive relationship to remain with her husband, abuse might be bad but divorce is worse. St Paul was without doubt sexist and deemed women as being not much more than sexual objects for their husbands.

That these women like the morals contained in the Bible is, to me, counter-intuitive. It is not a woman-friendly book and without doubt treats men as superior beings to women.

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

Enough already - there's another BIG thread in this off-topicness.

Somebody start it or I'll have to start doing mod stuff.

EDIT - legspin has a created new thread for this new topic.
Thanks legspin!

Whispered

Zillah wrote: »

You're still being very vague. For example, I agree that the following statement is incorrect: "Science has explained everything". Clearly it hasn't. But surely anything it hasn't explain is just a big question mark? Are you saying there is something you believe in that science has not encountered?

I am being vague because it is not what this topic is about. If you would like to know my beliefs feel free to start another thread that will allow me explain without being totally off thread. And TBH Zillah, a sarcastic comment in the spirituality forum is not a great way to have someone feel open enough to discuss their beliefs with you.

lostexpectation

jcb you would have gotten much further if you didn't have insulting answer in your poll

aidan24326

Other source ~ please explain

helena.ryan wrote: »

I dont read the bible, nor do I come from a family who reads the bible but to brand a whole group of people as "fcuking idiots" for believing in something you dont, makes me embarassed to be from the same species tbh. Why is it worse to be a theist who tries to force their opinions on people in an agressive way, than an athiest who does the same? Your attitude really seems to be one of total distaste towards theists. It's all well and good having different beliefs but the way you speak about people there is no better that religious bigots condemning other religions.

I didn't call anyone an idiot for not believing what I do so get that straight for a start. I said they were idiots for glorifying a book which is, to put it mildly, pretty hostile towards their gender, to say nothing of all the contradictions, outright nonsense etc etc etc

And where exactly was I trying to force my opinions on anyone else? I must be posting stuff in my sleep without realising.

Dades wrote:

Agreed. I have to say those ladies come out better than you after that post, aidan.

Well you're entitled to that opinion, but personally I think you're just being an apologist, not for the first time.

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

aidan, just as you have the right to air your opinions, people have the right to comment on them.
I might have used the word 'naive' where you used the words 'fucking idiots'. If that makes me an apologist, so be it.

JCB

Again, sorry if the options caused any offense, really none is intended.
I dunno maybe some atheists inform themselves via self help books I don't really know, hence I included it as an option.

As to why I put religious texts, some while not theists, may fundamentally agree with the 10 commandments, Jesus' words about living, or perhaps the path to enlightenment and combinations etc.. etc..

The not an atheist option is for the obvious, since I didn't want the poll skewed by theists referring to religious texts. OK?

Overall I believe in a mixture between the soul as a source of conscience (as a foundation perhaps) and it is informed, via commandments of Jesus to love one another as ourselves. A lot of complaints vis-a-vis women in the Bible, I think were relevant to the time. However, I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything derogatory about women in the Bible.

I would like to see more contributions to the poll before giving any opinions on the trends.

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

JCB wrote: »

I would like to see more contributions to the poll before giving any opinions on the trends.

You have over 40.
I don't know where you expect others to come from - no doubt the regulars have voted already.
Meh!

Galvasean

Other source ~ please explain

Awesome.

eoin5

Not an atheist/Atari Jaguar etc... etc...

Yea I'm defo gonna order that, Russel be damned!

DapperGent

Not an atheist/Atari Jaguar etc... etc...

JCB wrote: »

I would like to see more contributions to the poll before giving any opinions on the trends.

I can't wait. Any chance you could address my poll in the meantime?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Other source ~ please explain

Reciprocal altruism I guess, in a bid to pass on as many genes as possible

Was actually courtesy of Barack Obama, I was quoting him, though I do wholeheartedly agree

Abortion I'm okay with up until the being has a nervous system.

Gay Marriage as in a church I don't agree with but I have no issues with legally recognised civil unions

JCB

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think this is a bit of a stupid poll.

Well if it's only a 'bit' stupid I don't mind then.

I'm interested by the results, the personal motivators & personal experience options won hands down.

I'm also slightly disappointed how much of the replies focused on what everyone else thinks, rather than forming one's own conscience. in other words, the idea that if it's generally accepted then it must be OK.

I think towards perhaps the story of Mohammed and the foundations of Islam. AFAIK, He was annoyed by the widespread idolatry he witnessed around Him and rejected it, and instead was inspired by God to change it.
[Please correct me if i've said anything wrong here]

Perhaps, in 500 years time, people will look back and wonder how abortion was ever acceptable. However, in some countries such practices are widely acceptable or even encouraged. Does this make it right?

A lot of what the votes suggested was a sort of 'I won't bother about anyone else if they don't bother me' attitude.
Would this perhaps be a reason that virtually no one responded to the gay marriage and abortion part of my original post? If it doesn't apply to you, do you actually give a damn?

This smakes of individualism to me personally, which I don't think is helpful.
This I believe creates a society (if even), of have and have-nots, selfishness and many victims.

I just wonder does an atheist society result in a situation where 'evil prospers when good people do nothing'?

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

JCB wrote: »

I'm also slightly disappointed how much of the replies focused on what everyone else thinks, rather than forming one's own conscience. in other words, the idea that if it's generally accepted then it must be OK.

JCB wrote: »

This smakes of individualism to me personally, which I don't think is helpful.
This I believe creates a society (if even), of have and have-nots, selfishness and many victims.

I think people didn't need to respond to the question of gay marriage as their attitude should be clear from the response. i.e. what harm so why not? Abortion is an enormous can of worms and has seen many many threads of it's own - so any real thoughts on this are really only to sidetrack what it is you want to talk about.

Interestingly, JCB, you seem to be the only one who hasn't actually opened up here.

pH

JCB wrote: »

Would this perhaps be a reason that virtually no one responded to the gay marriage and abortion part of my original post? If it doesn't apply to you, do you actually give a damn?

This smakes of individualism to me personally, which I don't think is helpful.
This I believe creates a society (if even), of have and have-nots, selfishness and many victims.

I just wonder does an atheist society result in a situation where 'evil prospers when good people do nothing'?

Well obviously I'm with you on this one. Any society that forced men to marry other men and have sex with each other against their will would be abhorrent and evil. As 'good people' we have to remain vigilant against this*.

I think there was an atheists and abortion thread somewhere else - tbh it's so emotive it will swamp any issues in a thread so best kept in it's own box I think.

* It took me a while to get your meaning here about forced gay marriage. I originally thought you might be implying that a country that allowed gay marriage was one where 'evil prospers', but then I said no, he can't mean that - then he'd be a homophobic bigoted idiot.

JCB

Dades wrote: »

I think people didn't need to respond to the question of gay marriage as their attitude should be clear from the response. i.e. what harm so why not? Abortion is an enormous can of worms and has seen many many threads of it's own - so any real thoughts on this are really only to sidetrack what it is you want to talk about.

Interestingly, JCB, you seem to be the only one who hasn't actually opened up here.

Perhaps because I'm not an atheist, and was interested in atheist views, not comparing the two?

I think you're right Dades vis-a-vis the thread response to Abortion etc..., but I really wonder does the self-interest formation of conscience have a wider impact on society, creating victims. Just wondering about for example, suicide rates, it does seem to smack of a self-obsessed society that doesn't seem to care.
It appears diametrically opposed to a Christian (or perhaps other religious) ideal society, where people are supposed to care about and for others.

estebancambias

Some people hate religion for giving the world morality!!! I was reading about some Friedrich Neitzsche who believed modern morality is based on ''protection of slaves'' associated with Judaism and Christianity.

Is it not obvious that the Bible has indirectly had an effect on all our moral values?

I think directly parents are the ones who have given me my morality. The Bible could never give me morality, however a belief in God can, but probably not essential.

JCB

pH wrote: »

Well obviously I'm with you on this one. Any society that forced men to marry other men and have sex with each other against their will would be abhorrent and evil. As 'good people' we have to remain vigilant against this*.

* It took me a while to get your meaning here about forced gay marriage. I originally thought you might be implying that a country that allowed gay marriage was one where 'evil prospers', but then I said no, he can't mean that - then he'd be a homophobic bigoted idiot.

Curious you didn't use abortion as your example..........

I seem to take a wider stance on the words gay marriage than you do. Obviously marriage involves the potential care of children, any idiot would get that, pH.
If I think that children should not be raised in such an environment, then I obviously am a terrible person, and not even worthy of your vendictive insults.

JCB

estebancambias wrote: »

Is it not obvious that the Bible has indirectly had an effect on all our moral values?

I think directly parents are the ones who have given me my morality. The Bible could never give me morality, however a belief in God can, but probably not essential.

This assumes everyone was raised as a Christian (or Old Testament Jew), what about Hindus or other faiths? Hence, the broad spectrum of the poll.

robindch

JCB wrote: »

I just wonder does an atheist society result in a situation where 'evil prospers when good people do nothing'?

On the contrary, non-religious societies are more peaceful, have longer life expectancies, better education, less crime, and better standards of living. Check out this well-known research article, or the Times summary:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Quite possibly, it's because in atheist societies, people sit around drinking beer, having a smoke, going to the pub and cinema and generally farting around, rather than developing plans to fly planes into buildings, or gather pitchforks and torches and head up the road to the next village to forcibly convert the heathens because they're letting Satan run riot (and you can't have that).

estebancambias

Robin your analogy is too much exaggerated. You depict the Atheist group in a conserved peaceful setting and contrast that with an extreme example.

Religous fanaticism is as indirectly responsible for evil acts, as being an Atheist is for Stalin's reign in USSR.

JCB

robindch wrote: »

On the contrary, non-religious societies are more peaceful, have longer life expectancies, better education, less crime, and better standards of living. Check out this well-known research article, or the Times summary:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Quite possibly, it's because in atheist societies, people sit around drinking beer, having a smoke, going to the pub and cinema and generally farting around, rather than developing plans to fly planes into buildings, or gather pitchforks and torches and head up the road to the next village to forcibly convert the heathens because they're letting Satan run riot (and you can't have that).

/sniggers.

estebancambias

JCB wrote: »

This assumes everyone was raised as a Christian (or Old Testament Jew), what about Hindus or other faiths? Hence, the broad spectrum of the poll.

All reigions stem from Judaism right? So the 10 commandments have just been spread through all cultures and regions giving rise to what we deem morally correct.