A draft Manifesto to promote Ethical Atheism

Michael Nugent

In July, I published an article on why atheist and skeptic groups should be inclusive, caring and supportive, and how to discuss this reasonably. After reading the feedback to that article, I have written this draft manifesto to promote ethical atheism. I will write a revised version based on the feedback to this draft.

The ideas in this draft manifesto are not new. Many atheist activists already promote many or all of them. This manifesto tries to combine the best of our existing ideas into a set of principles and aims that all ethical atheists can promote, regardless of our policy differences on how best to implement them.

It includes:

1. Promoting reason, critical thinking and science
2. Promoting atheism over supernaturalism
3. Promoting natural compassion and ethics
4. Promoting inclusive, caring atheist groups
5. Promoting fair and just societies
6. Promoting secular government
7. Promoting local, national and global solidarity

You can read it here:

A draft Manifesto to promote Ethical Atheism

Feedback welcome.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Interesting document, and your call for feedback is brave - as we know, it's easy to be a critic but hard for someone to actually try to set out a draft that comprehensively sets out the field of interest. For what it's worth, I think you do well in that respect. I think your document probably includes most of the topics that people would want to discuss in this context.

I've just a couple of initial reactions (probably caused by following another thread here, if my comments seem a little random.)

In your first principle, you set out a very clear link between atheism and promotion of reason as an ethical value. I'd wonder about this. I find myself, in recent years, just too conscious of the extent to which the employment of reason and evaluation of evidence has caused quite appalling economic decisions. I don't see where in the document this is reflected at all.

It's as if you are replacing Jesus with reason. If Jesus can't be your guide, then reason will be. I feel the dilemma is that situations in which ethical decisions need to be made frequently have no clear guides at all. Employing reason, backed by evidence, may well be good advice for ass-covering. And if that's all you mean, maybe it should be stated as clearly as that; "a good atheist always covers his ass".

Secondly, as I read the document, I was reminded of that quote from Nietzsche about how, despite religion being dead, the same habits of thought regarding good/bad and the necessity for judgment persist. (I don't have the precise quote, and may be mis-remembering, but I think he says this in "Beyond Good and Evil"). Your document doesn't actually provide a basis for ethical atheism. Why should an atheist want to be ethical? Ascribing it to nature reads like avoidance; it's not like objective ethics can exist in nature.

You might consider borrowing an approach from Buddhism. As I understand it (and I'm open to correction) Buddhists contend that we should be ethical because its the path to happiness. For Christians, it might be the doorway to eternal bliss. An atheist ethical code needs a similar logic; why should I want to get into bed with a load of other atheists, and conform to some standard principles? I actually can't see why - I'd even say that, ironically, being an atheist means that I'm not part of some community of faith with shared principles. My community has to include everyone I interact with - whatever their position on religion.

Best of luck in your work on this document, and I hope you find the experience is a positive one.

Rev Hellfire

Its a nice sentiment.

MagicMarker

Instead of promoting atheism over supernaturalism, why not just promote naturalism over supernaturalism? After all, atheism and supernaturalism are not mutually exclusive.

Hotblack Desiato

1. Promoting reason, critical thinking and science
2. Promoting atheism over supernaturalism

OK. I think we can all agree what these mean.

3. Promoting natural compassion and ethics

What is 'natural compassion'? Does that mean an atheist with a rifle can't shoot cute bunny wabbits even if they're eating his crops? Does it mean a vegan can accuse a meat eater of lacking 'natural compassion'? What has any of this got to do with one's stance on theism vs. atheism?

4. Promoting inclusive, caring atheist groups

Ooh, let's not reopen the skepchic threads :rolleyes: which could be summarised as 'Inclusivity is what I and my dittoheads define it to be'

5. Promoting fair and just societies

Depeds on one's view on what constitutes a fair and just society, doesn't it? Is a just society one where the feckless live off the backs of everyone else?

6. Promoting secular government

Agreed. But this should be a given in any democracy worthy of the name.

7. Promoting local, national and global solidarity

Again, what does that mean and what has it got to do with atheism?

The claim to the moral high ground ('ethical atheism') is supremely ironic. I do not accept that you get to define the ethics of others any more than I accept than a pope, imam or rabbi does. I do not accept that atheism is neccesarily socialist, or feminist.

Michael Nugent

Ninja,

I have explained what the terms above mean, in the context of the draft manifesto, if you follow the link in the opening post.

I'd love to hear your opinions, however critical, to the content of the draft rather than just to the headings of the sections.

Hotblack Desiato

If a theist posted here and told me to read the old testament before commenting on his arguments... but I will follow that up when I can. It riles me though that someone would plant a flag on the ground and call it 'ethical atheist', that's a land grab that you have no right to make.

syklops

...on why atheist and skeptic groups should be inclusive, caring and supportive

Since when were they not? Not believing in the man upstairs, does not mean I am not moralistic, caring or supportive.

A draft manifesto for Ethical Atheism written by syklops, at 3am on a Saturday morning after a trip to the gym and several beers.

1.There isn't a God.
2. Try to treat others the way you would like to be treated.
3. If unsure about the first two, consult a fellow atheist.

Thats all I can come up with for now.

Hotblack Desiato

Or

1. There is no god
2. You will die soon
3. Don't be a dick.

syklops

ninja900 wrote: »

Or

1. There is no god
2. You will die soon
3. Don't be a dick.

I am willing to incorporate that into my manifesto...

Hotblack Desiato

OK, but the last one was stolen from Coder Dojo.

condra

Sorry but I don't get it at all, and I don't like it either. This recent push from certain circles for different levels of unity within atheism is baffling.

No offence Michael but I think it's arrogant and naive that you think you can herd atheists into your philosophical pen.

Most atheists pride themselves on their individualism and their ability to think for themselves. The whole concept of having a manifesto, code, or anything of the kind, reeks of religious dogma. It simply won't wash with most atheists. Atheists don't accept being told what to do or how to think from imaginary gods, or mere mortals either.

And even if they didn't mind the whole idea, not all atheists share the same politics. Few would like to be pigeon-holed with the numerous stances postulated by a manifesto, especially when these days individual politics are more complex than ever.

Aside from all that, don't we already have a name for atheists who have embraced a collective worldview, bolted on political correctness and ethical unity, i.e "humanists"?

I want to be included in this new environmentally-friendly-gay-dwarf-wheelchair-accessible-pro-choice-easily-offended-feminist-blogger-neo-atheism, about as much as I want to be included in the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't believe in God. End of story.

joseph brand

ninja900 wrote: »

Or

1. There is no god
2. You will die soon
3. Don't be a dick.

You beat me anyway. I only came up with 1 and 3 on my own.

I had images of Nugent (no offence), in a cardinals attire, complete with a big joke hat, in some position of authority, and we're back to square one.

This heathen (me), fails to see the need for a 'manifesto'. You may as well employ a sheep to herd a clowder of cats.

I ask myself, "what would Hitchens do?" I'm pretty sure he'd say "F*ck off!".

I like no. 1 on the list put forward by Nugent:

1. Promoting reason, critical thinking and science

Maybe if you accomplish this aim, the rest (points 2-7) will take care of themselves.

decimatio

Michael Nugent wrote: »

1. Promoting reason, critical thinking and science
2. Promoting atheism over supernaturalism

I know an Atheist who believes in luck and another who believes that she can only date men of a certain blood type* as it tells a lot about their personalities.

Are these two ladies now not welcome ?

*If you're blood type B than you can expect to be discriminated against by many people of the opposite sex in Japan and other Asian countries.

3. Promoting natural compassion and ethics

Who's ethics ?

I'm a strong advocate of Euthanasia, Capital punishment, and Eugenics. (for example)

Are those compatible with the ethics you're going to promote ?

4. Promoting inclusive, caring atheist groups

By inclusive I assume you mean be non-racist, non-sexist.

What do you mean by caring ?

5. Promoting fair and just societies

Fair and Just by who's definition ?

I believe affirmative action is unfair and unjust yet you are advocating it.

6. Promoting secular government
7. Promoting local, national and global solidarity

And maybe some people don't believe in those ? (I can't think why but I'm sure they exist)

raah!

A load of talk about "natural morality" as though this means exactly and exclusively what you think it means. You've been terribly corrupted by Sam Harris's latest trash about moral objectivism, as evinced by the inexplicably certainty with which you use these ill-defined terms. If you really think that this "natural ethics", which you haven't even defined, comes naturally to people, then perhaps you could tell us why one "feeling" is more "good" than another feeling. Are the natural impulses leading a strong person to take things from a weak person good? Are those same "natural impulses" which lead to things like rape good? What is a natural impulse? Why are the ideas you like "natural", since they came form your evolved brain, and all those ideas you don't like "corruptions" of natural morality, even though they were also produced by evolved brains.

If you've never considered this, then you shouldn't even open your mouth about this kind of sentimentalist philosophy. Instead of just, like mr harris, throwing out a bunch of wishy wash ill defined buzzwords and then following them up with a list of unsubstantiated 'shoulds'. You think all atheists should follow a sentimentalist moral philosophy, but you don't even understand what that means.

Nobody needs another politician dictating what the metaphysical or ethical beliefs of people should be.

jank

Michael Nugent wrote: »

..
1. Promoting reason, critical thinking and science
...
...
...
.

Think this thread is very apt for the above choice of words.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056735379

MagicMarker

joseph brand wrote: »

1. Promoting reason, critical thinking and science

Maybe if you accomplish this aim, the rest (points 2-7) will take care of themselves.

Add secularism to that and you're good to go.

muppeteer

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Ethical atheism is more precise than secular humanism, because religious people can be both secular and humanist, and because ethics affects all sentient beings and not just humans.

I think you have misunderstood humanism here. Yes religious people can be humanist but that is more precisely theistic humanism. Religious people can also be secular. But when you combine secular and humanism you essentially end up with atheistic humanism/secular humanism, which is what your manifesto is. And this is why you are coming up against so much resistance from atheists because it is imposing humanist values on atheism. Now as a humanist nothing within it seems disagreeable, but it is also nothing new or revolutionary in humanist thought. If some atheists agree with the kind of ethical atheism you propose then they are essentially secular humanists. If the atheists here haven't come around to humanism yet then calling it ethical atheism won't make much difference to them.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

joseph brand wrote: »

I like no. 1 on the list put forward by Nugent:

Maybe if you accomplish this aim, the rest (points 2-7) will take care of themselves.

Although I have to do a Pythonesque "I'm not" on that point, as its not like formal reason is a guide to much. There's a mate of mine who's Da used to like saying "You know, common sense isn't that common." (Although, that might be covered by "Don't be a dick")

I'd agree with a lot that's being said, but I'd still see no harm in Michael inviting and pursuing discussion on these topics. There is an appetite for this sort of thing; there's even a recent thread on the Christianity forum about some guy called Craig, where you'll see mentions of atheists - when confronted by theists in debate - apparently trying to maintain that their are objective ethics. That suggests to me that conversations need to be had.

For me, the issue seems to boil down to two things:
- there's no objective basis for any system of ethics; it has to start from some arbitrary assumption that is not the product of reason; such as Jesus is a god or all men are created equal or all sentient life must be respected, including the sentient stuff that eats tother sentient stuff.
- the "don't be a dick" bit. I need some reason to behave ethically towards others - and promoting the general good doesn't do it. It has to be "your dick will be best tickled by behaving in a somewhat reasonable manner". This (IMHO) means there's actually very little practical difference between a system of ethics and a guide to successful living.

So, while agreeing with virtually all of the comments, I'd still hope Michael persists with his work - even confirmation that this initiative is impractical is progress of a sort.

Michael Nugent

I'm happy with all of this feedback. Thanks.

I don't want to start defending or justifying anything in the draft at this stage.

I just want to get all feedback - both positive and negative - and then I will look at it again.

Please keep commenting on it.

tdawg

condra wrote: »

Sorry but I don't get it at all, and I don't like it either. This recent push from certain circles for different levels of unity within atheism is baffling.

No offence Michael but I think it's arrogant and naive that you think you can herd atheists into your philosophical pen.

Most atheists pride themselves on their individualism and their ability to think for themselves. The whole concept of having a manifesto, code, or anything of the kind, reeks of religious dogma. It simply won't wash with most atheists. Atheists don't accept being told what to do or how to think from imaginary gods, or mere mortals either.

And even if they didn't mind the whole idea, not all atheists share the same politics. Few would like to be pigeon-holed with the numerous stances postulated by a manifesto, especially when these days individual politics are more complex than ever.

Aside from all that, don't we already have a name for atheists who have embraced a collective worldview, bolted on political correctness and ethical unity, i.e "humanists"?

I want to be included in this new environmentally-friendly-gay-dwarf-wheelchair-accessible-pro-choice-easily-offended-feminist-blogger-neo-atheism, about as much as I want to be included in the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't believe in God. End of story.

+1

Completely agree on this. Unfortunately I think this sort of thing is due to political thinking. Obviously these ideals will be popular, even if they have almost nothing to do with atheism (and I include this idea that atheists are rational/critical thinkers)

I would actually disagree on 6 counts. No.6, promoting a secular society is the only one I would think should be the aim of Atheists Ireland.

fitz0

Having read the full draft, I agree with pretty much all of your sentiments Michael. The accompanying text serves much better than the 7 point list.

I dislike the second heading - 'Promoting atheism over supernaturalism.' Like MagicMarker says, naturalism may be a better term than atheism. Atheism is just non belief in gods, it's a neutral term. Naturalism is a lot more definite in it's opposition to supernatural.

I wish you the best of luck with this Michael, but I won't be signing up. I have my own atheistically ethical outlook and don't feel the need to have a manifesto representing me.

eoin5

I think there's a fight to be fought for some fairness and equality in education and law and it'd be good if we could come together on that.. but I'm struggling to see the need for this. I guess its no harm really.

Turtwig

If I'm to be an ethical atheist what should my position be on abortion?
(Euthanasia, death penalty, etc. )

UDP

I can't see how there can be a manifesto for ethical atheism. I used to think that as atheists there would be common understandings but now I see that being an atheist means nothing more than having the lack of belief in a god and I strongly think that it should be anything more than that.

I think your manifesto is perhaps more suited to the skeptic "community" rather than the atheist "community". I don't think the two are necessarily the same "community".

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its a nice sentiment.

Yup. Unfortunately the problem has never really been a manifesto like this, it has been having the people with the integrity to abide by the principles.

Not to derail too much, but you can see this in the new Atheism+ "movement". The principles of the movement seem sound, rational discourse, respect, social inclusion, absence of hatred etc. Problem is that not even those who came up with it seem to be sticking to these principles.

MisterEpicurus

Alright, I've read the manifesto and have to say I nearly requested a bucket. It's actually made me angry.

First and foremost, why is there a need for a 'Manifesto'? I don't see what function it serves at all. The whole idea is to show theists that we can be just as moral as believers without instruction. By creating a manifesto, it more or less replaces the Bible with the aforementioned text. This seems at best to be hypocritical as well as useless.

Atheism is no more than a disbelief about god. As an atheist myself, none of you guys on here can tell anything about my social and moral views nor my political ones by my lack of belief. I could believe in ethnic genocide and be an atheist - there should never be anything called 'Ethical Atheism' - it's a disgusting term. This individualism is what atheism should be about - it's terribly worrying that the Atheist Movement is metastasizing into some form of sociopolitical neoplasm which appears to be becoming as virulently intolerant and hierarchical as the forces they're trying to fight.

Thus, the concept of 'promoting atheism over supernaturalism' is actually repulsive to me. I don't want to take away anyone's beliefs and it's not my place to try. Nor will I be a hypocrite and 'preach' to others what I would hate for them to do to me. I simply don't care and the vast majority of believers and non-believers in this country think the same. Since atheism has become somewhat more popular and acceptable since Dawkins and Co., we're seeing atheist groups have the same properties that religious groups do. Atheists often preach the moral maxim "Don't do to others what would be repulsive if done to yourself" - I wish the preaching atheists would listen to this when they proclaim things like "Promote atheism over supernaturalism" and other arrogant statements. And remember...I'm speaking as an atheist myself here.

And some of the others are what everybody wants - both the believer on the street and the committed atheist. For example, I think it goes without saying that most parents want to "Promote Reason, Critical Thinking and Science" - you don't have to be an atheist to subscribe to that principal.

The whole thing just reeks of arrogance and self-congratulation with toxic overtones of smugness. Atheism is only a lack of belief - that's it - I wish groups like Atheist Ireland would stop this ridiculous campaign. I'll repeat it again - the ordinary Joe and Mary who've got to work tomorrow don't care about all this and will bring their child up just as equally moral. I think members of Atheist Ireland have gotten so obsessed (probably because of the lack of a proper job??) with Atheism that they assume there's something more to it than there actually is. The fact is - there isn't - it's just a lack of belief in god and that's it. I'm an atheist and won't subscribe to this no matter how many edits it undergoes.

NO MANIFESTO!

Michael Nugent

Just to clarify, this is not a draft manifesto for all atheists.

It is a draft manifesto for ethical atheists who care about both truth and morality, and who want to promote the type of principles in the draft manifesto.

If you are an atheist but don't consider yourself to be in this category, then it's not for you. You don't have to get angry about it, just ignore it.

If you do consider yourself to be in this category, but have different ideas about how best to implement these principles, then I'm happy to hear feedback.

But I'm not trying to provide something that encompasses the views of all atheists, so please don't judge it on that basis.

MisterEpicurus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Just to clarify, this is not a draft manifesto for all atheists.

It is a draft manifesto for ethical atheists who care about both truth and morality, and who want to promote the type of principles in the draft manifesto.

If you are an atheist but don't consider yourself to be in this category, then it's not for you. You don't have to get angry about it, just ignore it.

If you do consider yourself to be in this category, but have different ideas about how best to implement these principles, then I'm happy to hear feedback.

But I'm not trying to provide something that encompasses the views of all atheists, so please don't judge it on that basis.

You're ignoring my comments by that slightly cloudy statement.

It CAN'T be a 'draft manifesto for ethical atheists' because the concept of 'ethical atheist' doesn't make sense as others have posted. It also implies that atheists that don't follow this ridiculous manifesto are somewhat not ethical or 'not as ethical'. Why can't you let everybody be moral and individualistically atheist? Why does Atheist Ireland continue to impose these structures of regular meetings, annual meetings, hierarchies, manifesto's etc. on the ordinary atheist who is tarred by the actions of this group?

And by the way, I care about 'truth and morality' but still find this ridiculous and somewhat offensive.

Michael Nugent

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

You're ignoring my comments by that slightly cloudy statement.

I’m not ignoring your comments.

I’ve already said that I will respond to all of the comments, but that I don’t want to cloud the feedback by defending or justifying any parts of it at this stage.

But nothing that comes out of this will force anybody to do anything.

If, as you say, you don't want to take away anyone's beliefs and it's not your place to try, then please apply that reasoning to those of us who believe that this might be a useful idea to develop.

MisterEpicurus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If, as you say, you don't want to take away anyone's beliefs and it's not your place to try, then please apply that reasoning to those of us who believe that this might be a useful idea to develop.

Linguistic acrobatics if ever I've seen it.

I think atheists shouldn't be theists - it doesn't make sense to be as bad as those you criticise.

So you have a 'belief' to change the 'beliefs of others'? I think that statement is beyond contempt and ridicules the concept of being an atheist.

Feel free to be a hypocrite then.

Michael Nugent

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

So you have a 'belief' to change the 'beliefs of others'?

No, I have a belief that this (the idea of the draft manifesto) might be useful idea to develop.

You actually put that quote of mine in bold, and then you misquoted it three sentences later.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Feel free to be a hypocrite then.

There's no need to be personally abusive.

MisterEpicurus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

There's no need to be personally abusive.

I don't consider the word 'hypocrite' to be abusive - it's merely a harmless descriptive term.

And I do consider it hypocritical to condemn 'irrational' religious folk who use the Bible for moral values while trying to create a moral outlook for the 'Atheist Community' who are essentially just a group of individuals.

Michael Nugent

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I don't consider the word 'hypocrite' to be abusive - it's merely a harmless descriptive term.

Calling me a hypocrite is suggesting that I express beliefs that I know are inconsistent with how I live my life. I'm sure I unconsciously do that at times, but I try not to do it knowingly.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

And I do consider it hypocritical to condemn 'irrational' religious folk who use the Bible for moral values while trying to create a moral outlook for the 'Atheist Community' who are essentially just a group of individuals.

See, if you had written that instead of calling me a hypocrite I would have responded differently.

I condemn the use of dogma, based on invented ideas about supernatural gods, to impose codes of morality based on what somebody says the creator of the universe told someone else in the past.

I think it is an admirable idea to develop ideas of morality and ethics based on natural concepts such as compassion and empathy and reciprocity, and to examine these ideas using reasoned philosophical discussion, and to promote these ideas among atheists and religious people alike.

I don’t see where you see the hypocrisy in this.

tdawg

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Just to clarify, this is not a draft manifesto for all atheists.

It is a draft manifesto for ethical atheists who care about both truth and morality, and who want to promote the type of principles in the draft manifesto.

If you are an atheist but don't consider yourself to be in this category, then it's not for you. You don't have to get angry about it, just ignore it.

If you do consider yourself to be in this category, but have different ideas about how best to implement these principles, then I'm happy to hear feedback.

But I'm not trying to provide something that encompasses the views of all atheists, so please don't judge it on that basis.

Well it very much comes across as if Atheist Ireland is promoting 'ethical atheism'. Would it not make sense to rename Atheist Ireland to 'Ethical Atheist Ireland', or will manifestos be made for all flavours of atheist.

In fact why this is exclusive to atheists? Why not an ethical person manifesto? Only point 2 is objectionable in that context, and is the least ethical of the 7 statements anyway.

Michael Nugent

tdawg wrote: »

Well it very much comes across as if Atheist Ireland is promoting 'ethical atheism'. Would it not make sense to rename Atheist Ireland to 'Ethical Atheist Ireland', or will manifestos be made for all flavours of atheist.

This particular document is a draft prepared by me personally. It is not Atheist Ireland policy. It is not anybody's policy. It is a discussion document.

However, from day one, Atheist Ireland has been promoting ethical atheism. It is reflected in the first two articles of our constitution.

Our Mission Statement is:
1. Atheist Ireland aims to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism.

Our Aims are:
2.1. To promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism.
2.2. To promote an ethical and secular Ireland where the state does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion.

We have been unambiguously clear about this from our foundation. We are not just a group of people who share only a disbelief in gods. We are an advocacy group seeking to bring about changes in society. We are not being secretive about that. It should not come as a surprise to anybody.

There is a long thread somewhere else on this forum about why we chose to call ourselves Atheist Ireland. It addresses your other question in more detail than I could here.

tdawg

Michael Nugent wrote: »

This particular document is a draft prepared by me personally. It is not Atheist Ireland policy. It is not anybody's policy. It is a discussion document.

However, from day one, Atheist Ireland has been promoting ethical atheism. It is reflected in the first two articles of our constitution.

Our Mission Statement is:
1. Atheist Ireland aims to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism.

Our Aims are:
2.1. To promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism.
2.2. To promote an ethical and secular Ireland where the state does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion.

We have been unambiguously clear about this from our foundation. We are not just a group of people who share only a disbelief in gods. We are an advocacy group seeking to bring about changes in society. We are not being secretive about that. It should not come as a surprise to anybody.

There is a long thread somewhere else on this forum about why we chose to call ourselves Atheist Ireland. It addresses your other question in more detail than I could here.

Fair enough if the manifesto is personal, but it's confusing considering its content and your own position. Any chance you can provide a link for that thread to save me searching boards for it? Personally I think it is slightly misleading for an organisation called Atheist Ireland to actually represent an 'ethical' subset of atheists, but it would seem to explain a lot.

In fact why this is exclusive to atheists? Why not an ethical person manifesto? Only point 2 is objectionable in that context, and is the least ethical of the 7 statements anyway.

This is the question that I'm really interested in anyway, particularly as it is your own personal produce rather than being Atheist Ireland policy.

Michael Nugent

tdawg wrote: »

Fair enough if the manifesto is personal, but it's confusing considering its content and your own position. Any chance you can provide a link for that thread to save me searching boards for it? Personally I think it is slightly misleading for an organisation called Atheist Ireland to actually represent an 'ethical' subset of atheists, but it would seem to explain a lot.

You are refreshingly open about your laziness

But here you go...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055990277

be warned, it is 26 pages long.

tdawg wrote: »

This is the question that I'm really interested in anyway, particularly as it is your own personal produce rather than being Atheist Ireland policy.

In brief, it is to enable a discussion on how to develop ethical ideas without having the process corrupted by dogma based on supernatural beliefs.

tdawg

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You are refreshingly open about your laziness

But here you go...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055990277

be warned, it is 26 pages long.

I am sorry but it is considered good manners to link threads from 2 years ago, especially given I have only been using this forum for 1 month. I did manage to find it myself anyway. To be honest I personally didn't find the reasoning for maintaining the Atheist Ireland title compelling and did ironically find it a lazy choice myself.

In brief, it is to enable a discussion on how to develop ethical ideas without having the process corrupted by dogma based on supernatural beliefs.

I suppose it makes sense if this manifesto is solely meant for discussion on how to develop ethical ideas among just 'ethical atheists', though I would assume that you would miss out on many valuable perspectives as not all theists necessarily rely on their 'dogma' for their own personal reasons for promoting ethics. Many people believe in a god-like creator without having to believe what is written in the bible/quran/whatever.

btw the inference that a theists ethical ideas are 'corrupted' comes across a bit strong.

robindch

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Feel free to be a hypocrite then.

That comment is uncalled for -- please tone down your rhetoric.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

tdawg wrote: »

In fact why this is exclusive to atheists? Why not an ethical person manifesto? Only point 2 is objectionable in that context, and is the least ethical of the 7 statements anyway.

Same thought occured to me. People could have all kinds of reasons and motivations for promoting a secular state. Firm believers might simply agree, and see the sense in education etc being undertaken on a neutral basis.

So, yeah, as a vehicle to achieving those goals, limiting the scope to atheists seems wrong. Many atheists may not share these ethics, while many theists might share them.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

This particular document is a draft prepared by me personally. It is not Atheist Ireland policy. It is not anybody's policy. It is a discussion document.

Just because you're getting so much flak, can I say that I don't find it objectionable at all that someone would draft such a document and seek views on it. I've no problem, either, with someone exploring if atheists can reach a common understanding of these matters. I think you are on a road to nowhere, but I see no reason why you should not make the attempt.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I condemn the use of dogma, based on invented ideas about supernatural gods, to impose codes of morality based on what somebody says the creator of the universe told someone else in the past.

I would have too, at some point. When I left religion behind, I would have similarly assumed that something that is wrong must surely be bad.

But now I really don't see that I've something better to offer somebody than those religious dogmas. For all I know, religious dogma might have supplied Katie Taylor with the conviction that she, as much as anyone, could be a Gold medalist. Without it, reason might have told her that it was ridiculous for an ordinary woman from Bray to have such an ambition.

Or maybe not. But, again, (as I think someone has already said) there's no reason for atheism to be pursuing conversions. I think this is another respect in which you are borrowing the religious mindset. Instead of respecting people's right to find their own paths in life, you want to create replicas of yourself.

Tell us, at Atheist Ireland meetings are there ever shouts of "testify, testify" as someone recounts their reasons for unbelief?

Lucy8080

a draft manifesto for "ethical athiests".

Worthless juvenalia deleted

Northclare

MagicMarker wrote: »

Instead of promoting atheism over supernaturalism, why not just promote naturalism over supernaturalism? After all, atheism and supernaturalism are not mutually exclusive.

Well that sounds good,years ago if you told someone who was Ignorant but naive about atoms and quarks etc they would thought about it in a supernatural way....

robindch

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Worthless juvenalia [...]

lucy gr8 2 have u bck. any more dat kinda dum rbbish 'n' u'll be banned.

Northclare

robindch wrote: »

Lucy8080 wrote: »

[COLOR="Red"]Worthless juvenalia [...][/COLOR]

lucy gr8 2 have u bck. any more dat kinda dum rbbish 'n' u'll be banned.

It's only Monday lol
Sure isn't she entitled to her opinion lol

Lucy8080

hi rob,


thx for the welcome back.

i can defend what i wrote in that post.

if i posted it in the hazards of religion thread.. it would get a pass.

"ethical athiest" is somehow protected.

and i dont know why!

like i said....ill defend my post if you reinstate it...if not...

no arguments from me.

decimatio

robindch wrote: »

lucy gr8 2 have u bck. any more dat kinda dum rbbish 'n' u'll be banned.

Reading that gave me a headache.

robindch

Lucy8080 wrote: »

i can defend what i wrote in that post.

Lucy, you made a number of unhelpful personal comments in that post. That's inappropriate. Feel free to address the actual topic which is a draft manifesto concerning ethical atheism. And in coherent English, please.

Lucy8080

no probs rob.

but , leaders of organisations or journalists are not immune (here) from criticism ...a lot of it personal.

i meant nothing personal against michael....and im sure most here feel they are attacking an idea because they see the leader as the embodiment of that idea.

guess any personal attacks against popes ,paisleys,imams,rabbis,journos etc will now be censored.


im looking forward to this.




thanx for the feedback rob.

philologos

If what is ethical is relative, isn't it meaningless? Surely it means that right and wrong are whatever the heck we want then to be? I've always been curious as to how one can find a logical basis for ethical behaviour in the absence of an objective source of ethics.

Genuine question - I've been wondering that for years. What makes your claim about ethics any more robust than the one who argues that recreational human fieldshooting is OK?

robindch

philologos wrote: »

If what is ethical is relative, isn't it meaningless?

What's "meaningless" about a group of people getting together and agreeing on an ethical code to live by? And why should an ethical code have "meaning" anyway? It's an ethical code to regulate human interaction, not a metaphor.

You're making the simple mistake of thinking that choosing a set of religious beliefs does not constitute "choosing" the related ethical code. Of course it does. You're choosing what to live by just as much as everybody else is, but you're just not able to see it or apparently willing to admit it if you do.

As for your claim that "recreational field shooting" might be ok in some strange place, well, I can't imagine the victims being very happy to agree to it. And for the unchanging, eternal wisdom of a biblical code, I read this post yesterday in which religious people managed to convince themselves that murdering children is morally justifiable.