A draft Manifesto to promote Ethical Atheism

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.

Dades

I've just got to this topic after being away.

As someone who doesn't really go in for groups promoting atheism, this manifesto was never going to appeal to me. I like being an atheist because, in theory, the term shouldn't burden me with any other baggage. I'm free to be a secularist, a humanist, an agnostic or even an astrologist ghost-hunter.

I also can't help but thinking that the term Ethical Atheism suggests that vanilla atheism is lacking in ethics. While this in fact may be true - as the term has nothing to do with ethics - the implication remains a negative one.

We have Humanism as a term (with associated declarations) created specifically to further the ethical aims suggested here. This manifesto seems to be attempting the same thing - while at the same time promoting atheism and atheist groups in an oddly self-serving way.

philologos wrote: »

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.

I agree, insofar as you can no more nail down what is ethical to atheists than you can to theists. Or even individual branches of religion. There's no fixed universal ethics in the same way there is no universal morality.

You can, however, lay out some ground rules which serve as a starting point for fair discussion on morality. In this instance, the suggestion is religious dogma is a hindrance to advancing this cause, as it influences what people think based on millennia old principles.

Northclare

Great point Dades.
I'm spiritual therefore I feel as an individual that there's more than one road to anywhere.

I don't need to subscribe to any religion or group unless it's my own decision.

Peace of mind is worth more than any thing.

pH

philologos wrote: »

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.

You've posted on this before - I'm curious about the words "absence of an objective source of ethics". What do you consider "an objective source of ethics"? You seem to be contrasting this manifesto to this concept, so you are making the claim that objective sources of ethics exist - but this is not one of them - hence has no more weight that "a guide to killing humans for sport".

So can you provide a list of "objective sources of ethics", and describe what makes them so, rather than Michael's document?

Northclare

And I'm always wary of one person making up other people's minds for them,we see that a lot.
It's not good for atheism when the ego gets inflated and someone thinks they can lead the way for Atheism that's the start of a Rocky road of division etc....

Blowfish

philologos wrote: »

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?

There's a rather obvious flaw in your example, in that no Christian religion actually believes that killing humans is objectively wrong.

Objectivity by its definition must be applied universally, hence would applied not only to humans, but to all other creatures, including god. Given that the christian god has killed humans, then he/she is objectively guilty and is thus evil.

If it's ok for the christian god to kill humans in certain circumstances but not for humans to do this, then killing humans is not an objectively immoral act, but a subjective one.

Sarky

Why is the argument from religious folks always along the lines of "Lack of objective morality => shooting people for fun"?

It's scary.

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

Why is the argument from religious folks always along the lines of "Lack of objective morality => shooting people for fun"?

It's scary.

Religious people love slippery slopes. If they didn't they wouldn't really have many arguments at all.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

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?

Common sense of society rather than personal desire of individual or group.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

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.

Because no objective source is required. At the end of the day morality and ethics reduces to nothing more than people deciding how best to live with each other. The way we decide to do this is by coming together and deciding those standards together on an ongoing basis.

We do this in sport when we come together and agree the rules we will play by. We do this in relationships when a couple come together and decide the boundaries of their relationship. We do this in many areas of our lives where people come together under a given context and agree the standards and rules of behavior which will govern their conduct within that context.

So it should not be too surprising to you really that ethics at a society level is just another example of people coming together and agreeing, or at least attempting to agree on, the rules of the game.

No objective morality or imaginary sky fairies required.

Northclare

What's a Sky Fairy ?