# You find my lack of faith disturbing?



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

I hope that this thread isn't just a 'spill over' from another thread but anyway..

I remember TF one time told me 'he would never vote for someone who wasn't religious'. His reason was, he thinks they lack a 'moral compass', which implies that he thinks that our wide spectrum of morals is transmitted supernaturally or something like that. 

Today Billcihak posted a video in which Darth Vader is seen assaulting one of his subordinates because they questioned him, and Vader said ' I find your lack of faith disturbing'. It's all in good fun of course.

So I was thinking about how if there was an official running for president and he/she identified as an Agnostic or Atheist or whatever, I would vote for them simply on those terms. My thought process for this? Well, while Billcihak finds my lack of faith disturbing, I think I find if someone is in a position of power and they have a 'faith', I find that disturbing. Most people are aware that if they have a religious belief, they 'take it on faith'. What I am wondering is,* what else *will they 'take on faith'? Evidence and reason is how we make sense of the world around us. Law Enforcement, Teachers, Politicians etc. It's important that these people will be educated in how to do their job and will make rational decisions while doing it. If I remember correctly, GW Bush 'took it on faith' when we went to war with Iraq. Something which I take personally, as I had to watch a lot of people die. I don't want a president that 'relies on their gut.........'. I want people in power ( cops, leaders....) that can rationally evaluate all evidence and make reasonable decisions. This is why I just can't vote for someone like Rick Perry. What else will he 'take on faith'?


----------



## Steve (Aug 9, 2011)

I think that a politician's faith is irrelevant. At one time, there was a correlation drawn between what someone said that they believe in and what kinds of decisions they would make.  In other words, if you're a self identified Christian, you would vote in a way that is consistent with your faith.  

History has shown that this is completely unreliable.   A person could self-identify as an atheist, but make decisions that endear him to a Christian base.  Or he could be Christian, but vote in a way that is inconsistent to that base.

There are a billion reasons why, but ultimately, the President represents (or should represent) EVERYONE.  That means a jewish president will work on the Sabbath, buddhists might have to send troops into a foreign country or order a tactical air strike, and, yes, an atheist would have to stand up and protect the rights of Christians and other religious faiths from unlawful persecution.  It's in the job description.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 9, 2011)

Not worried either way.  Many people claim to have faith, but vanishingly few take it seriously in the sense that Jesus taught: " So do not worry, saying, &#8216;What shall we eat?&#8217; or &#8216;What shall we drink?&#8217; or &#8216;What shall we wear?&#8217; [SUP]32[/SUP] For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. [SUP]33[/SUP] But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. [SUP]34[/SUP] Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."  Vanishingly few religious people refuse to see a doctor, refuse to work and get a job, or step off a cliff, knowing that their heavenly Father will protect them.

When it comes right down to it, nearly all of the faithful act in their day-to-day life as if they had no faith at all.

That said, true fanatics should of course be kept from the levers of power.  But that holds true for all fanatics, religious or not.


----------



## Omar B (Aug 9, 2011)

I don't see the contrived tie between religion and the realm of morals and ethics ... because such things predated any religion.  So no, in fact I'm more likely to vote for an atheist rather than trying to vote based upon who seems less of a religious nut-job.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> There are a billion reasons why, but ultimately, the President represents (or should represent) EVERYONE.  That means a jewish president will work on the Sabbath, buddhists might have to send troops into a foreign country or order a tactical air strike, and, yes, an atheist would have to stand up and protect the rights of Christians and other religious faiths from unlawful persecution.  It's in the job description.



Of course. I'm not saying 'I don't want basic human rights for people'. 

But there are jobs out there, where they evaluate your mental faculties and how you evaluate the world around you. If the results are not to their standard you can't have the job. 

How many people here would vote for a Presidential candidate who publicly declared he was a Satanist? He doesn't like kill people or anything, he just worships demons. Would you consider him maybe unfit to lead the USA?


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 9, 2011)

Like it or not. A LOT of Americans espouse some sort of Christian belief. They vote.

Need I continue?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

Omar B said:


> I don't see the contrived tie between religion and the realm of morals and ethics ...



Not talking about morals. Just 'how the person evaluates the world around him/her and makes decisions about who to go to war with, who not to etc


----------



## Steve (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Of course. I'm not saying 'I don't want basic human rights for people'.
> 
> But there are jobs out there, where they evaluate your mental faculties and how you evaluate the world around you. If the results are not to their standard you can't have the job.
> 
> How many people here would vote for a Presidential candidate who publicly declared he was a Satanist? He doesn't like kill people or anything, he just worships demons. Would you consider him maybe unfit to lead the USA?


To an atheist/agnostic or anyone outside the christian faith, what's the functional difference between a satanist and a christian?  They believe in the same things.  God, Jesus, devils, demons, heaven and hell.   In other words, it would be pretty far down on my list of concerns.   

My point is this.   If you're asking how faith informs the person's decision making process, my answer is that it doesn't.  If the person is a zealot, regardless of faith, I'd be leery.  If the person isn't a zealot, regardless of faith, I just don't see it being an issue.

Now, archangel makes a great point.  I'm answering on strictly an academic level.  In the real world, a non-christian wouldn't make it to the final party.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 9, 2011)

So what...the OP thinks that teachers, cops, politicians need to be atheists to do a good job???


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

yeah, there is something to the religous doctrine that each individual is important and precious in their own right, with out regard to the "big picture" of a society.  The atheists have just as bad a track record on bad decisions, based on science.   Religion may not be necessary for a good person but atheism is no gaurantee either.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> So what...the OP thinks that teachers, cops, politicians need to be atheists to do a good job???



Hahaha. I know it makes me sound like a jerk. 

I'm sharing because I am not afraid to have my worldview changed, and was wondering what others think. 

Do you think it's ok to 'take things on faith' and not worry about evidence, when investigating a crime scene? Is it ok if the president 'takes it on faith' that Iraq has Nuclear weapons?  

Or do you think that the practice of 'taking things on faith' is generally just in matters of Cosmology and Biology, and most people don't use it for other areas ?


> The atheists have just as bad a track record on bad decisions, based on science.


This is a good point. The Atheists in question had *irrational beliefs* ( which is exactly what I'm talking about) on what they thought was science but were really just conjectures that many 'took on faith'. 

It's not just 'Atheists'.  It's beliefs without evidence.


----------



## Carol (Aug 9, 2011)

I would not cast a vote for someone simply because they were atheist/agnostic (or any other religion/worldview), much like I wouldn't vote for someone simply because they were a particular gender, or simply because they are (insert race here), or simply because they are (insert party affiliation here).

In the 2000 election, voters in my city elected a state rep (Tom Alciere) that advocated civilians shooting LEOs if the cops stepped out of line.    Alciere resigned ~3 weeks after taking office.
Local (audio):  http://www4.nhpr.org/node/92
National: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/05/tl.00.html

This year, we had a 91 year old, agnostic state rep (Marty Harty) resign because he suggested that "mentally defective people" be "sent to Siberia to freeze."    Harty resigned shortly after making the comment, ~3 months after taking office.
Local: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news...7-227/rep.-harty-send-defects-to-siberia.html
National:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/martin-harty-suggests-sen_n_834316.html

Many have speculated that many people that voted in Alciere did so because many in our (very Republican) city were voting a straight Republican ticket in 2000.    The same logic could (potentially) vote in an agnostic like Marty Harty.  

It doesn't matter to me that a candidate is an atheist/agnostic.  It doesn't matter to me if a voter likes a candidate because they are atheist/agnostic and sees that as a plus.  Remove worldview and substitute race, gender, party, or any other personal attribute if you like.   

But such an attribute should never be a substitute for a voter's due diligence.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

Carol said:


> In the 2000 election, voters in my city elected a state rep (Tom Alciere) that advocated civilians shooting LEOs if the cops stepped out of line.    Alciere resigned ~3 weeks after taking office.
> Local (audio):  http://www4.nhpr.org/node/92
> National: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/05/tl.00.html
> 
> ...


Do you think these people are fit to be leaders?  I don't, because I think they hold irrational beliefs. Is it wrong for me not to vote for them?


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

I think the fact that they are politicians automatically assumes there is something wrong with them at some level regardless of what religion or non-religion they believe.  Hence the need to monitor them constantly for bad behavior or, more accurately, to see if once in a great while they manifest good behavior.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 9, 2011)

I think you are making somewhat of an assumption about people who believe in God. What makes you think that I can't separate issues of fact/science from issues of faith? I don't have "faith" in the accuracy of DNA evidence. I don't look to science to answer questions about what happens to my loved ones after they die.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I think you are making somewhat of an assumption about people who believe in God. What makes you think that I can't separate issues of fact/science from issues of faith? I don't have "faith" in the accuracy of DNA evidence.


I don't know. I guess I can't see them as describing separate issues. Both science and Islam or Mormonism or whatever are describing the same phenomena. How the universe works. It's laws. When it began. What its fate is.  etc. Both fields are using techniques to describe the same phenomena. You say you separate it. What do you mean? For every subject matter you use the scientific method *except* for Cosmology?



> I don't look to science to answer questions about what happens to my loved ones after they die.



Why not?


----------



## Carol (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Do you think these people are fit to be leaders?  I don't, because I think they hold irrational beliefs. Is it wrong for me not to vote for them?



Not wrong at all.  It is wise to take a person's decision-making in to account when assessing their leadership capabilities.  However, that is
  inconsistent with your opening premise:  that you would vote for a candidate simply because they are atheist or agnostic. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 9, 2011)

We have seen people of great "faith" turn out to morally bankrupt.  There is no way to see into a person's mind and soul to know if they truly follow the tenants of any religion.  This goes double for most politicians who seem to have a knee jerk reaction to lie if they believe it will garner them a few votes.  The same is true for anyone agnostic or athiest.  Because they do not believe in a religion does not mean they cannot be a moral person.  Statements to the contrary are just self-serving and based upon no fact.  The best indicator of a person's morality is his behavior.  While this is not always the easiest thing to know, if a person has behaved in immoral ways in the past, odds are he will do the same in the future.  Make it easier or reward that same person for immoral behaviour and it is almost a certainty he will behave in an immoral way.  So if you want to know how a politician will behave in office, do a little research on how he has behaved in the past.  Don't rely on empty titles such as Christian, Athiest, or even Muslum.  They are not an accurate indicator.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 9, 2011)

My "faith" has nothing to do with creation allegories or actually believing that God pulled a literal rib from Adam and made Eve. Maybe your personal experience was different, but being religious does not mean you cannot accept science (and never has since many scientists have been people of one faith or another). The Catholic church even accepts evolution.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp



> Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man&#8217;s _body_ developed from previous biological forms, under God&#8217;s guidance, but it insists on the _special creation_ of his _soul_. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter&#8212;[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, _Humani Generis_ 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.



I think this clip makes a good example of "faith":

[yt]duu0bCkSlUo[/yt]

If you want to define your world as love=brain chemistry, oxytocin, dopamine, etc. and that courage and self-sacrifice is an evolutionary development to ensure the survival of the tribe/species have at it. I prefer to have "faith" in my definition of whats important to me and the world I choose to live in during my ride on this globe. Trying to frame people like me as being no different from some native who literally thinks the earth rides on the back of a turtle seems like willful pigeonholing to fit me into YOUR worldview.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

Carol said:


> Not wrong at all.  It is wise to take a person's decision-making in to account when assessing their leadership capabilities.  However, that is
> inconsistent with your opening premise:  that you would vote for a candidate simply because they are atheist or agnostic.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


Good point. If the Agnostic politician is a deuchebag with stupid views like 'sending people with mental issues to Siberia to freeze', then I of course, do not support them. But to be honest, if I heard that two candidates were running, one identifies as Agnostic and the other as Scientologist, I would support the Agnostic. I just don't think I'd be comfortable with a president that thinks "Xenu brought Homo sapiens to Earth 75 million years ago..." 




Archangel M said:


> My "faith" has nothing to do with creation allegories or actually believing that God pulled a literal rib from Adam and made Eve. Maybe your personal experience was different, but being religious does not mean you cannot accept science (and never has since many scientists have been people of one faith or another).


 I would imagine that most of the people on Earth are fairly reasonable. However the more I think about, it the more I think my argument is valid. There are still people out there trying to get Evolutionary Biology out of the school system. Stuff like that is exactly what I'm talking about. People in positions of responsibility not evaluating overwhelming evidence and just taking other views 'on faith'.    Why does everyone think this is ok?   





> The Catholic church even accepts evolution.


  I remember the pope issuing some statement about it as if his opinion in Biology matters. If he's not a Biologist, why is he making public statements about Biology and acting like he _knows_ something? Seems weird. 


> If you want to define your world as love=brain chemistry, oxytocin, dopamine, etc. and that courage and self-sacrifice is an evolutionary development to ensure the survival of the tribe/species have at it. I prefer to have "faith" in my definition of whats important to me and the world I choose to live in during my ride on this globe. Trying to frame people like me as being no different from some native who literally thinks the earth rides on the back of a turtle seems like willful pigeonholing to fit me into YOUR worldview.


Just who do you think you are making fun of those with other faiths than your own? Do you think what you just said, about people who believe the world rides on a turtle, was rude?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 10, 2011)

Religion seems from an outsiders point of view a big part of American politics, surely though that's at odds with the American thing about religion and state being separate. Here religion plays no part in politicking and rarely if ever does a politician mention what if any faith he has and it doesn't come up when they are looking for votes in elections.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 10, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Of course. I'm not saying 'I don't want basic human rights for people'.
> 
> But there are jobs out there, where they evaluate your mental faculties and how you evaluate the world around you. If the results are not to their standard you can't have the job.
> 
> How many people here would vote for a Presidential candidate who publicly declared he was a Satanist? He doesn't like kill people or anything, he just worships demons. Would you consider him maybe unfit to lead the USA?


Yes.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 10, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> My "faith" has nothing to do with creation allegories or actually believing that God pulled a literal rib from Adam and made Eve. Maybe your personal experience was different, but being religious does not mean you cannot accept science (and never has since many scientists have been people of one faith or another). The Catholic church even accepts evolution.
> 
> http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
> 
> ...



 Second Hand Lions - Great movie!


----------



## Carol (Aug 10, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Good point. If the Agnostic politician is a deuchebag with stupid views like 'sending people with mental issues to Siberia to freeze', then I of course, do not support them. But to be honest, if I heard that two candidates were running, one identifies as Agnostic and the other as Scientologist, I would support the Agnostic. I just don't think I'd be comfortable with a president that thinks "Xenu brought Homo sapiens to Earth 75 million years ago..."



Full agreement there :lol:


----------



## Jenna (Aug 10, 2011)

How do you feel as strict athiests, having leaders not only openly professing religious faith and but potentially seeking counsel from that faith in a decision-making process?

Would you feel more comfortable with a leader who shared your own view? 

I think that is thus far generally not the case.  However, if it were to become the case that your next leader was not only athiest and but eschewed all forms of faith as delusion or at best foolhardiness, how do you imagine that would change politics both for good and for bad on a national and global level?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 10, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I hope that this thread isn't just a 'spill over' from another thread but anyway..
> 
> I remember TF one time told me 'he would never vote for someone who wasn't religious'. His reason was, he thinks they lack a 'moral compass', which implies that he thinks that our wide spectrum of morals is transmitted supernaturally or something like that.



First off, I don't care one way or the other about your lack of faith, or anyone else's, including elected officials. In this, I look to the founders, and follow Jefferson's position:



> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone.
> [SIZE=-1]-- *Thomas Jefferson*, in a letter to John Adams, 11 January 1817, in Lester Cappon, ed. _The Adams-Jefferson Letters,_ (1959) p. 506, quoted from Jeremy Koselak,
> 
> "*The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.* "[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]



Why should *you *care about someone's faith?

People are not rational, no matter how much they try-what seems to be a rational position to one can seem completely irrational to another. 
We generally want to elect people "like us," which, like it or not, for most in this country means Christian or Jewish, at the very least. 

With that said, there are people who voted for Bush because he said he was a "born-again Christian." There are people who voted for him because they thought he'd be a great guy to ahve a beer with. There are people who voted for him on the issues, or, in some cases, their issue, like abortion. 





fangjian said:


> So I was thinking about how if there was an official running for president and he/she identified as an Agnostic or Atheist or whatever, I would vote for them simply on those terms.



Is that any moe rational than voting for someone because of their faith?



fangjian said:


> My thought process for this? Well, while Billcihak finds my lack of faith disturbing, I think I find if someone is in a position of power and they have a 'faith', I find that disturbing.



Why? They don't generally make decisions on "faith."



fangjian said:


> Most people are aware that if they have a religious belief, they 'take it on faith'. What I am wondering is,* what else *will they 'take on faith'?



In my experience, not much else, except when it comes to poeple.



fangjian said:


> Evidence and reason is how we make sense of the world around us.



There is no making sense of the world around us. We are irrational creatures-naked apes, really-and the world is one of chaos. The things we do to make sense of our lives are individual to each life, and, for some, it's religion. Or art. Or evidence and reason.



fangjian said:


> Law Enforcement, Teachers, Politicians etc. It's important that these people will be educated in how to do their job and will make rational decisions while doing it.



None of which are precluded by "faith."



fangjian said:


> If I remember correctly, GW Bush 'took it on faith' when we went to war with Iraq. Something which I take personally, as I had to watch a lot of people die.



Not exactly, though he's been quoted by others as believing himself to be chosen by God to do so. Remember he's a politician, though, and a capitalist-there were deeper motivations to the invasion of Iraq that will never be completely ignored, as they are obscured by stuff like this.



fangjian said:


> I don't want a president that 'relies on their gut.........'.



Don't think we've ever had one that didn't. They relied on other things, like evidence, reason and their advisors, but, in the end, leadership is often about making gut decisions. 



fangjian said:


> I want people in power ( cops, leaders....) that can rationally evaluate all evidence and make reasonable decisions. This is why I just can't vote for someone like Rick Perry. What else will he 'take on faith'?



It's fair to say that whatever your elective choices, a professional politician in this country is going to also appear to be a person of some faith, if only marginally. He'll be photographed going to church-even if he's at best a Christmas and Easter Christian. 

Hell, the Republican candidate for President is likely to be a Mormon this election cycle-an adherent to a religion founded by a con-man from New York named "Joe Smith." Talk about taking things "on faith...." :lfao:


----------



## cdunn (Aug 10, 2011)

elder999 said:


> First off, I don't care one way or the other about your lack of faith, or anyone else's, including elected officials. In this, I look to the founders, and follow Jefferson's position:
> 
> Why should *you *care about someone's faith?
> 
> ...



The only time I am concerned about a candidates faith is when he or she promises directly call upon his faith as a reason to do things which I believe are poor for the nation or unethical. I will not vote for any person who promises to put any dogma above pragmatism - Be that dogma Dominionism or Communism. It does me no injury that Obama may or may not believe in god. But when a sitting governor chooses to make his public face prayer, rather than fighting wildfires and seeking water sources in the face of a drought, I hear the distant strains of a fiddle playing in Rome.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 10, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I hope that this thread isn't just a 'spill over' from another thread but anyway..
> 
> I remember TF one time told me 'he would never vote for someone who wasn't religious'. His reason was, he thinks they lack a 'moral compass', which implies that he thinks that our wide spectrum of morals is transmitted supernaturally or something like that.
> 
> ...


I hate that you are making defend TF, but your premise is a little flawed Moral Compasses and the super natural are not related.
Sean


----------



## fangjian (Aug 10, 2011)

Carol said:


> Full agreement there :lol:


 Why though? Why do you agree with me? I thought you were someone who implied that 'these things don't matter when voting'


Jenna said:


> How do you feel as strict athiests, having leaders not only openly professing religious faith and but potentially seeking counsel from that faith in a decision-making process?


 What do you mean when you use the word 'strict' here?
  I think it is very scary when leaders seek counsel on decision making. Whether GW seeking advice from a minister or Reagan consulting with Astrologers. 


> Would you feel more comfortable with a leader who shared your own view?


By 'my view', I will define it as a leader who 'makes decisions based on Human Reason, Physical Evidence, Logic, and Empathy'. Yes, I guess I  would be more comfortable with my leader having this worldview. 


> I think that is thus far generally not the case.  However, if it were to become the case that your next leader was not only athiest and but eschewed all forms of faith as delusion or at best foolhardiness, how do you imagine that would change politics both for good and for bad on a national and global level?


It would not be good to publicly belittle others. I don't think he/she should 'push people away'. Like when Reagan said Atheists are 'not real Americans'. 
 It would be good for politics and the USA as a whole if a future president was an 'out of the closet' Atheist. The word Atheist still holds strange negative connotations. The terms Agnostic, Humanist etc. are a bit gentler for most Americans. However the Atheist/Agnostic/nonreligious community mostly identify with the word 'Atheist' now, so that is the 'flag I will fly under'. Pearlists, Rationalists, Humanists, Secularists, Agnostics,....... The word doesn't matter to me. I would just like to see more of us coming together, since there are more of us ( non religious people ) than many like to think. 


elder999 said:


> Why should *you *care about someone's faith?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 People in positions of responsibly do base decisions on 'faith'. 
For example:
-The movement of banning proper Biology being taught in schools. 
-Politicians talking about how we are 'on missions from gods' etc.
-The entire existence of Israel and it's location- a self fulfilled prophecy.
-Teachers beating children in schools because gods say it's 'ok to do so'. 
-Treatment of Homosexuals
-The existence of slavery in the USA being rationalized because gods 'said it's ok'



Touch Of Death said:


> I hate that you are making defend TF, but your premise is a little flawed Moral Compasses and the super natural are not related.
> Sean


I don't understand this sentence. Sorry


----------



## Balrog (Aug 10, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I hope that this thread isn't just a 'spill over' from another thread but anyway..
> 
> I remember TF one time told me 'he would never vote for someone who wasn't religious'. His reason was, he thinks they lack a 'moral compass', which implies that he thinks that our wide spectrum of morals is transmitted supernaturally or something like that.
> 
> ...


Are you me?

I feel the same way.  I'd rather have a solid agnostic as President because he won't waste time on religious hooey.  I like Rick Perry (I live in Texas), but man - I wish he'd shut his piehole with the religion yapping.


----------



## MaxiMe (Aug 10, 2011)

Cathonlic, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, or Purple Sneekers. I just want to know "Where's the beef" and don't try and feed me "corn, corn, corn". Gotta watch for the traveling salesman.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 10, 2011)

What does the term _"Do the right thing,"_ mean to an atheist?  When I get a satisfactory answer to that question, I can say whether or not I would vote for any given atheist who runs for public office.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 10, 2011)

Do I care about a political candidates faith?  Absolutely.  Must it be my own?  No.  Must they be true to their faith?  Absolutely.  I'm not saying they must be some born-again Christian uttering "Praise God" every third sentence, nor must they be an ultra orthodox Catholic who promises to confer with the Holy Father on every decision.  But they must be true to their faith and their expression of it.  (I demand this of my friends, as well.)  I don't want a politician who's beliefs change with the church pulpit they're giving a stump speech from.  I want to know that I can reasonably predict how well their decisions will reflect my own beliefs and choices.  

If they're agnostic or atheistic, no problem.  I'll look to their character, and how well I believe they'll reflect my choices and how I think the government should be run.  Just like I would a candidate of faith.

I do, since I consider myself a person of faith, think that it's important for a candidate, ESPECIALLY FOR PRESIDENT, be a person of faith.  I simply feel that the spiritual support and guidance of a faith is important in that position.  I know that I have had more than one incident in my career where I've found my faith to be a vital comfort and support in handling it -- and can only imagine it to be even more necessary, if in a different way, for the President of the United States.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 10, 2011)

When your car isn't working do you look for a competent mechanic to fix it or do you look for one that shares your religious/non religious beliefs? When you employ politicians, which is what you do when you vote for them, do you want them doing a good job or do you want them believing what you do? I have no idea what my MP ( the Foreign Secretary William Hague) is religion wise, I wouldn't dream of asking him, what I want is him to be a good MP which he is. Religion has no part in choosing politicians.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 10, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> When your car isn't working do you look for a competent mechanic to fix it or do you look for one that shares your religious/non religious beliefs? When you employ politicians, which is what you do when you vote for them, do you want them doing a good job or do you want them believing what you do? I have no idea what my MP ( the Foreign Secretary William Hague) is religion wise, I wouldn't dream of asking him, what I want is him to be a good MP which he is. Religion has no part in choosing politicians.



"Religion has no part in choosing politicians *for me*."

There, I fixed it for you.

There is nothing wrong with making a decision about the leadership of the nation based on one's own values and the presumption that another shares them.

I don't ask my mechanic what his politics are, either.  Nor do I ask the cook at the restaurant.  I only care about their expertise in their particular field. However, if either of them is going to make decisions and set policy that will affect my entire life, I *do* want to know a variety of things.  Their politics, their background, their shared values, and so on.

Frankly, I would never vote for a person who had not served in the military.  Shared value.  It may not be logical - some people have served in the military rather poorly, to say the least.  But if they have not served, they do not get my vote, end of discussion.  But is it a valid reason to vote or not vote for a person? Sure!  For me.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 10, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> . Religion has no part in choosing politicians *in the UK*.



Fixed that for ya.

I worked with some guys, right after the 2000 election. Voted for Bush because he was a Christian, and was going to stop people from "killing little babies."  Bottom line, whatever the hot button social issue is in the U.S., there's a strong religious component driving one side. Intelligent design theory in schools. Abortion. Gay mariage.Believe it or not, global climate change. etc., etc., etc......


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> "Religion has no part in choosing politicians *for me*."
> 
> There, I fixed it for you.
> 
> ...



Please don't fix things for me, it's rude.

Let me ask a question. What are politicians to you? You seem to want some one to lead you morally, almost like a religious leader. In the UK and Europe a politician is simply someone you employ to run the country the same way you employ an accountant to do your books, a mechanic to mend your car etc. They are employees of the people or really in our case the Queen. Of course we want honest ones who play the game but what religion they are matters not. We don't want moral guidance from them we want lower taxes and to be left alone. Values as such don't really come into it, we want politicians to do what we want them to, frankly it doesn't matter if they are shagging someone elses wife/husband though if they get caught it means they are stupid and we don't want stupid. The Prime Minister isn't someone to look up to he's a man with a job same as the bank manager,we hope he's honest and knows what he's doing though the chances are he doesn't lol so we'll get a new one next time. People might mock the Italian Prime Minister's young women but if he does a good job running the country the Italians don't care how many girlfriends he hasm that's between him and his wife. These people are only leaders of a country because we employ them to be, they aren't spiritual leaders, they aren't there for their morals other than not having their hand in the till, we want them to reduce unemployment, lower taxes and such things. They are functionaries, *we* are the country.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 10, 2011)

In my opinion, my vote is a vote to hire a person to represent me in government.  I'm not hiring them for thier religion, military service, gender, sexual preference or anything like that.  If he's going tofocus on what I think is important then that is what I want.  I understand many people use religion as that yardstick, but I don't feel comfortable with that.  I much rather see what they've done in the past.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 10, 2011)

fangjian said:


> What do you mean when you use the word 'strict' here?


See below




fangjian said:


> The word doesn't matter to me. I would just like to see more of us coming together, since there are more of us ( non religious people ) than many like to think.


 
I think you are absolutely right yes.  And I also think the converse is true in that while there seem to be great numbers that follow orthodox religions, many among them that profess religion are very far from standard bearers for those religions they claim to represent.  This of course is painfully evident in much of the heinous crimes by their own that have tormented the Vatican's elders recently.

Having said that, there would be athiests that would frivolously perform all kinds of pseudo-superstitious and sub-religious "ritual" even on a frivolous basis for example, something as simple as the act of wishing veers awkwardly from the realm of science towards the realms of deities of whatever ilk.  This is what I meant by strict and more should I say _lax _athiests.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What does the term _"Do the right thing,"_ mean to an atheist? When I get a satisfactory answer to that question, I can say whether or not I would vote for any given atheist who runs for public office.



You won't like this much; but all ethics are situational. You affix some principles as guidelines, though not absolute, and you do the best that you can for yourself, your family, your community. The ends must justify the means - and some means are not justifiable.

Life is cannot be replaced. Self determination is a part of what makes us human. You live in a community, and you both give to and recieve from it, be it formally and lawfully, or informally and charitably - This is a part of your basic nature as a human, you are evolved to it. The best functioning balance will change with the community. Right and wrong are for, and against, the better interest of the human and the community. 



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> When your car isn't working do you look for a competent mechanic to fix it or do you look for one that shares your religious/non religious beliefs? When you employ politicians, which is what you do when you vote for them, do you want them doing a good job or do you want them believing what you do?



I want competence. But certain politicians choose to make themselves incompetant in the name of beliefs.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What does the term _"Do the right thing,"_ mean to an atheist?  When I get a satisfactory answer to that question, I can say whether or not I would vote for any given atheist who runs for public office.



What does it mean to a theist?  You aren't likely to get a coherent answer that covers all theists either.  After all, the answer seems to range from "feed the hungry and heal the sick and glorify the Lord" to "kill the unbeliever" or "have sex with underage girls."  I think you will find that the average atheist answers much like the average theist - don't hurt others except in defense, tell the truth, help the needy, etc.  One can make recourse to a variety of supernatural-free ethical and moral philsophical systems to justify these answers, but most people don't seem to need that, atheist and theist alike.

Demanding some sort of coherent system of morality that covers all atheists is simple bigotry when you don't demand it of theists.  Theists have shown that believing in the supernatural can still lead you to do morally terrible things.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 10, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Please don't fix things for me, it's rude.



Then don't make statements that assume you are speaking a universal truth, it's rude.



> Let me ask a question. What are politicians to you? You seem to want some one to lead you morally, almost like a religious leader.



I want someone who shares my values, goals, and opinions.



> In the UK and Europe a politician is simply someone you employ to run the country the same way you employ an accountant to do your books, a mechanic to mend your car etc. They are employees of the people or really in our case the Queen. Of course we want honest ones who play the game but what religion they are matters not. We don't want moral guidance from them we want lower taxes and to be left alone. Values as such don't really come into it, we want politicians to do what we want them to, frankly it doesn't matter if they are shagging someone elses wife/husband though if they get caught it means they are stupid and we don't want stupid. The Prime Minister isn't someone to look up to he's a man with a job same as the bank manager,we hope he's honest and knows what he's doing though the chances are he doesn't lol so we'll get a new one next time. People might mock the Italian Prime Minister's young women but if he does a good job running the country the Italians don't care how many girlfriends he hasm that's between him and his wife. These people are only leaders of a country because we employ them to be, they aren't spiritual leaders, they aren't there for their morals other than not having their hand in the till, we want them to reduce unemployment, lower taxes and such things. They are functionaries, *we* are the country.



A cook cooks food.  A mechanic fixes things.  An accountant balances the books.  Differences in how they do these things are down to taste (cooking) or correctness (mechanic) or legality (accountant).  A political leader is much more than that.  I want my leaders to not just lead the nation, but to lead it in the way I believe it should be led.  To that end, I want a leader that shares my background, my goals, my hopes and dreams, my aspiractions, and yes, my morality.  And there is nothing wrong with wanting that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> What does it mean to a theist?  You aren't likely to get a coherent answer that covers all theists either.  After all, the answer seems to range from "feed the hungry and heal the sick and glorify the Lord" to "kill the unbeliever" or "have sex with underage girls."  I think you will find that the average atheist answers much like the average theist - don't hurt others except in defense, tell the truth, help the needy, etc.  One can make recourse to a variety of supernatural-free ethical and moral philsophical systems to justify these answers, but most people don't seem to need that, atheist and theist alike.
> 
> Demanding some sort of coherent system of morality that covers all atheists is simple bigotry when you don't demand it of theists.  Theists have shown that believing in the supernatural can still lead you to do morally terrible things.



But all theists have a definition of "Do the right thing."  I asked what definition atheists have.  Please do not avoid the question.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But all theists have a definition of "Do the right thing."  I asked what definition atheists have.  Please do not avoid the question.



I did not, I addressed the question directly.  There is no single definition of "do the right thing" for atheists, no more than there is for theists.   You ask for the "atheist" definition before you will consider voting for any atheist, and yet no such single definition exists.  There is no single definition for theists either, and yet you will still vote for them.

Unless I have misunderstood your argument somehow.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I did not, I addressed the question directly.  There is no single definition of "do the right thing" for atheists, no more than there is for theists.   You ask for the "atheist" definition before you will consider voting for any atheist, and yet no such single definition exists.  There is no single definition for theists either, and yet you will still vote for them.
> 
> Unless I have misunderstood your argument somehow.



Perhaps I haven't explained it well.  When an atheist wants my vote, I want to know how he or she defines _"do the right thing."_  Their answer will determine my response to their request.

Your point that all theists will answer the question different depending upon their religion and upon other factors is quite correct.  However, their statement of faith provides a reference point from which to begin.  When a person tells me that they are an American, that may not tell me much, but it gives me a frame of reference upon which to expand.  When a person tells me that they are an atheist, that information does not inform me about things that are meaningful to me if I am going to consider voting for them, does that make sense now?

If a person tells me that they are a Christian, I can make certain assumptions; for example, that they celebrate Christmas.  While I'm sure that there are some Christians who do not, the chances are high that they do.  We have some (even if in this case rather meaningless) common ground.  What common ground do I have with an atheist?  I do not know what he or she believes the _'right thing'_ would be to do, as they do not share my religious background.  So they are going to have to tell me.

That is why I ask the question.  If an atheist wants my vote, they must first answer for me the question of what it means to them to _'do the right thing'_.  I will respond to their request for my vote based upon their answer.

Remember, being an atheist is not a statement of belief that has a framework.  It is a statement of non-belief, which by nature has no framework.  If a person has no predefined framework, then I insist they tell me what their personal framework is, or I cannot vote for them to lead me.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 10, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> When your car isn't working do you look for a competent mechanic to fix it or do you look for one that shares your religious/non religious beliefs? When you employ politicians, which is what you do when you vote for them, do you want them doing a good job or do you want them believing what you do? I have no idea what my MP ( the Foreign Secretary William Hague) is religion wise, I wouldn't dream of asking him, what I want is him to be a good MP which he is. Religion has no part in choosing politicians.



If the mechanic has beliefs that will affect their decisions in their field, than it can be a problem. If a teacher has beliefs that can affect decisions in their field, it can be a problem.  See below. 



fangjian said:


> People in positions of responsibly *do* base decisions on 'faith'.
> For example:
> -The movement of banning proper Biology being taught in schools.
> -Politicians talking about how we are 'on missions from gods' etc.
> ...


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When an atheist wants my vote, I want to know how he or she defines _"do the right thing."_  Their answer will determine my response to their request.



I understand you now, thanks for the explanation.  I thought you were going somewhere very differently.  I feel similarly to how you do, except that I don't readily accept shared background or stated beliefs like religion as a marker for this all-important question.  People are too good at rationalizing away their stated beliefs when they feel like violating them for one reason or another.  I want them to be more specific as well as actually being transparent while in power.  I know this never happens, but I can dream, right?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 10, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I don't understand this sentence. Sorry


Of that I am sure.


----------



## MaxiMe (Aug 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Frankly, I would never vote for a person who had not served in the military. Shared value. It may not be logical - some people have served in the military rather poorly, to say the least. But if they have not served, they do not get my vote, end of discussion. But is it a valid reason to vote or not vote for a person? Sure! For me.



Dang I guess all us "Brats" are now unelectible in Bill's neck o the woods


----------



## elder999 (Aug 10, 2011)

fangjian said:


> People in positions of responsibly do base decisions on 'faith'.



And, in our political system, that is a legitmate _choice_ for them, just as it is your _choice_ to not vote for them.



fangjian said:


> For example:
> -The movement of banning proper Biology being taught in schools.



While there are a lot of movements towards teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools, I don't think there has been an outright movement to ban "proper Biology."




fangjian said:


> -Politicians talking about how we are 'on missions from gods' etc.



Until they get caught shtupping an intern, and find out that we aren't. In any case, religious rhetoric gets them votes and sympathy, from those that _choose_ to believe that way, just as it pushes you away.



fangjian said:


> -The entire existence of Israel and it's location- a self fulfilled prophecy.



The current state of Israel is *exactly* where _Israel_ has always been. It owes its entire existence to a colonial movement with a strong base in the U.S., one that was largely political and ideological, and not exactly religious.



fangjian said:


> -Teachers beating children in schools because gods say it's 'ok to do so'.



Until they get thrown in jail, and they and their schools get sued-then they find out that it's *not* "okay to do so."

Unless, of course, it's a private school, and the parents approve. I _pray_ for kids like that, every single day.



fangjian said:


> -Treatment of Homosexuals



The behavior of some people towards homosexuality because of what they think their religion tells them is disgraceful, and often mistaken. The treatment of homosexuals by society at large has a bit of a way to go yet as well, and has less to do with "religion" than the fact that heterosexual find the idea of men with men "icky."



fangjian said:


> -The existence of slavery in the USA being rationalized because gods 'said it's ok'



They'd have found another justification-slavery is economical, and it *gets **** done. *:lfao:






Always has......


----------



## fangjian (Aug 10, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> I hate that you are making defend TF, but your premise is a little flawed Moral Compasses and the super natural are not related.
> Sean


 


Touch Of Death said:


> Of that I am sure.



-I hate that you are making defend- 

What does that mean?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Perhaps I haven't explained it well.  When an atheist wants my vote, I want to know how he or she defines _"do the right thing."_  Their answer will determine my response to their request.
> 
> Your point that all theists will answer the question different depending upon their religion and upon other factors is quite correct.  However, their statement of faith provides a reference point from which to begin.  When a person tells me that they are an American, that may not tell me much, but it gives me a frame of reference upon which to expand.  When a person tells me that they are an atheist, that information does not inform me about things that are meaningful to me if I am going to consider voting for them, does that make sense now?
> 
> ...



I see. 

If I hear that a presidential candidate is identifying their self as an Atheist, these are the assumptions that I can make. Through experience I will be right much of the time. Like you say you hear someone is a Christian, you have a model that you can connect to, and you will be right much of the time. 

-So far I am impressed with this candidate's choice of the term Atheist. They could have been a bit more gentle and just said 'Agnostic', but no. They chose the one that would make people turn their head. I like that. 

So, I would imagine that this candidate is also an Agnostic as most Atheists are, and rightfully so. Their position on church and state is secular. They are likely pretty knowledgable about world religions and culture. Many people who identify as an Atheist, have read the bible and quran a few times. If this candidate came from a very religious upbringing in the south or wherever, extra kudos. I know it couldn't have been easy. They are likely someone that will make important decisions based on the available evidence, human reason etc. Not by gods and goddesses telling them so. They are not easily swayed by most Pseudosciences. They probably understand that our species came from a chaotic kill or be killed world and we *are* just apes. However, we are apes that can ask questions about the universe. We can ask questions on how to maximize the well being of others and of other sentient creatures. And that is what morality is. Maximizing well being. We inherited this from our ancestors. Once you admit that one way is demonstrably better than another at maximizing well being, it is measurable. 

Well I guess I'll end there and spare you my crappy writing ability.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 10, 2011)

Hmmm, 

I&#8217;ve been involved in Conservative politics for many years and I have yet to base my willingness to work for a candidate on their religion, gender, age or race. I base it completely on their views on the issues that concern me. There are hundreds of issues the government must contend with, it is impossible to agree with any candidate on them all, so people pick and choose the ones that are near and dear to their heart. 

&#8220;Doing the right thing&#8221; is far too vague a question to answer. Do the right thing on what issue? Do you dismiss a candidate because while you agree with them on 95% of the issues, the other 5% contain some issues that are near and dear to your heart?   

I have worked, volunteered and paid, for people who were devoutly right wing Christian, even though I am an atheist, because I agreed with them on various important issues. They have in return worked for me because they agreed with some of my core beliefs.

I want the best people running my country, Province and City, I don&#8217;t care what faith or lack of, they have.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 10, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> I want the best people running my country, Province and City, I don&#8217;t care what faith or lack of, they have.


Interesting. I would assume you might have the same view I do. So, like the political leaders in the Middle East who base their entire worldview (about Jews, NonMuslims, Gays etc.) from the quran and base political decisions from that. You don't think that that is unfortunate?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 10, 2011)

I ask the question about 'doing the right thing' not because I want an answer on any one thing.  What I want to know is how the atheist in question arrives at a framework for what is 'right'.  For the term in this context is a moral one, and morals are derived from, if not entirely dependent upon, a framework established by religion.

It is not the 'thing' I am interested in here.  It is from whence the atheist in question derives his or her notion of 'right', that moral value which has no meaning stripped of human belief in how we ought to live our lives.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I ask the question about 'doing the right thing' not because I want an answer on any one thing.  What I want to know is how the atheist in question arrives at a framework for what is 'right'.  For the term in this context is a moral one, and morals are derived from, if not entirely dependent upon, a framework established by religion.
> 
> It is not the 'thing' I am interested in here.  It is from whence the atheist in question derives his or her notion of 'right', that moral value which has no meaning stripped of human belief in how we ought to live our lives.


Ahhhh. Very cool question. I can't speak for everyone obviously. But I think what is most popular right now is the concept of our morals coming from Evolutionary Biology and Neuroscience.

To put it short:
Our sense of morality is guided by our desire to maximize human well being, generally. We realize that morality is of course, relative, but just because we don't have answers for everything, that doesn't mean that there _aren't_ answers. A scientific approach can be used to determine what is right and what is wrong. Human well being is measurable. Empathy, Human Reason, Compassionate Discussion, Evidence etc. are the things that we can use to maximize human well being. Did this answer your question kinda ?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 10, 2011)

The you are viewing morals as only coming from religion, even though the morals of religions are different, there is no set standard or benchmark as it were and that those without religion in their lives can have no moral framework.
Now trying to put words in your mouth Bill, but is that the essence of where you are coming from?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 10, 2011)

I am viewing morals as without value outside of that which we (humans) give it.  Since we can prove to a reasonable extent that man has never existed in a state without some form of religious belief that dominated their culture and which (at least to the extent that we can know) gave rules for living based upon the desires or wishes of a supernatural being, we can be reasonably certain that the history of morality is inseparable from that of religion.  Religion has three major facets; the first is that there are beings greater than ourselves, the second is that these beings desire us to behave in a particular way, and the third is that there is a reason for the way our universe appears to work.  Morality is nothing more than the second facet of religion applied to human societies of all sorts, religious and secular.

There is no objective morality.  People may choose to insist that human life has an intrinsic or inherent value which is self-evident and undeniable, without any requirement for a religious framework, but I deny this.  Note that I am not saying atheists are immoral; rather I am saying that true atheism is by nature amoral; any choices which atheists make which guide their choices in ways others might refer to as 'moral' or 'good' are based upon values of which I have no ken unless they explain it to me.

I do not mean this as an attack on atheists, for I do not dislike or distrust atheists.  I do not think they are evil, or even immoral.  I think that they must either possess the same basic framework of morality I do - in which case they are certainly not atheists - or they have a value system for arriving at similar decisions, and I cannot comprehend that unless they choose to explain it to me.

Can a person without religion have a moral framework?  No, not as such.  They can have a set of codes or rules by which they have chosen to live, which certainly function as morals do.  But they are not the same; they cannot be, because morals are artificial constructs invented by religion.

Ask a religious person why they should not kill.  It may take awhile to dig down, but ultimately the reason progresses from the notion that human value has intrinsic value to the notion that killing is 'wrong' to the basic premise; God said so.

What is the basis for not killing to an atheist?  Does human life have intrinsic value?  Certainly not if we're just smart animals  (unless one wants to argue that all animals have the right to live, which is fine, except I do eat meat).  Is there an objective 'right' or 'wrong' to killing humans that does not have a religious connotation?  I've never heard of one.  And of course, with no God, we cannot argue that God said so.  I am not saying that atheists do not think murder is wrong; I'm sure they do think it is wrong.  I am saying that their basis for believing it to be wrong is either based upon a religious code for a religion they do not believe in, or it is based upon some construct I am not familiar with.

In any case, I've never said I would not vote for an atheist.  I have said that I have no framework by which to understand what they believe and how those beliefs mesh with mine; so I must ask them what they believe is 'right and wrong' because I quite honestly cannot assume they think what I do if they do not espouse a religion.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Can a person without religion have a moral framework?  No, not as such.  They can have a set of codes or rules by which they have chosen to live, which certainly function as morals do.  But they are not the same; they cannot be, because morals are artificial constructs invented by religion.


I looked up the definition of 'morality' and never found a direct link to religion, so we can use the word. Unlike I think the word 'Righteousness' because in its definition there are religious connotations. Your definition -a set of codes or rules by which they have chosen to live, which certainly function as morals do  is pretty much the definition of 'morals'. 





> Ask a religious person why they should not kill.  It may take awhile to dig down, but ultimately the reason progresses from the notion that human value has intrinsic value to the notion that killing is 'wrong' to the basic premise; God said so.


What if God said " Intercourse with infants pleases me. You are commanded to partake in this ritual once per year"


----------



## elder999 (Aug 10, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Ahhhh. Very cool question. I can't speak for everyone obviously. But I think what is most popular right now is the concept of our morals coming from Evolutionary Biology and Neuroscience.
> 
> To put it short:
> Our sense of morality is guided by our desire to maximize human well being, generally. We realize that morality is of course, relative, but just because we don't have answers for everything, that doesn't mean that there _aren't_ answers. A scientific approach can be used to determine what is right and what is wrong. Human well being is measurable. Empathy, Human Reason, Compassionate Discussion, Evidence etc. are the things that we can use to maximize human well being. Did this answer your question kinda ?



*No.*

As true as all that is, morality is a construct. What is moral to a headhunting cannibal from Borneo: _to slay his enemies, eat their flesh, keep their women and their head as trophies_-is done for "human well-being." It is also completely anaethma,and totally _immoral_ to most modern sensibilities.


Evolutionary psycholodist, David Buss, in his _ The Murderer Next Door_, makes  the case that human beings are hardwired for murder-that we have homicidal fantasies more than most people would believe, and that we are often aroused to commit murder by perceived "mate poaching," or what we call jealousy. It's pretty fascinating, and may well be FOS, but he makes an interesting, if not completely covincing case, that it is felt to be completely moral to commit these acts by those who do commit them, _while they are committing them_.

 It's for "human well-being,"-*their own*. While empathy, human reason, compassionate discussion, and evidence are things that we can use to maximize human well being, we are, basically, very selfish primates, and _practice_ those things-no matter how much we may or may not feel them-by _choice._


----------



## Carol (Aug 10, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Why though? Why do you agree with me? I thought you were someone who implied that 'these things don't matter when voting'



Why do I agree -- fatigue and cynicism, frankly speaking.  I may reading too much in to the post, but in the current political climate, politicians are bringing up creationist stories as a veiled attack on science in the classroom.  I'm sick of it. I feel very strongly that science should be taught in science class, and I also feel very strongly that a child should have a chance at an academically rigorous education.


----------



## Mark Jordan (Aug 10, 2011)

People in public office should be role models and do their jobs well no matter what religious beliefs they have.  Sadly, politicians happen to be shirking their responsibilities like it's going out of style.  Isn't it common sense that they should do their jobs well and be responsible?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Then don't make statements that assume you are speaking a universal truth, it's rude.
> 
> I didn't. You assumed that was what I meant.
> 
> ...



A way back a lot of Americans here were upset at Obama because he didn't give the Queen a present they thought he should but no one here was upset because while you regard him as a _leader_ we regard him as a _politician_. he's climbed the greasy pole of politics and got the top job sure but he's still a politician, he doesn't turn into a demi god becuase he got the top job. We regard him as the representative of your government not the leader of your country, that's how we regard all such as he so there's a big difference in how you perceive your president and how the rest of the world does. so perhaps you shouldn't get so upset with him or any other incumbent if you think he doesn't behave properly on the world stage.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 11, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I looked up the definition of 'morality' and never found a direct link to religion, so we can use the word.



No, we really cannot.  That is one of the three arguments atheists use to attempt to explain why they can have a framework of ethics known as 'morals' and not be religious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality is inextricably linked to religion.  Even the Wikipedia article, which ascribes morality to religions, cultures, and societies, does not note that all cultures and societies came from and with religious underpinnings.  There are and have never been atheist societies.



> Unlike I think the word 'Righteousness' because in its definition there are religious connotations. Your definition -a set of codes or rules by which they have chosen to live, which certainly function as morals do  is pretty much the definition of 'morals'. What if God said " Intercourse with infants pleases me. You are commanded to partake in this ritual once per year"



There have been societies in which the religious requirements were those which would be unacceptable to us today.  At the time, however, such commandments were considered correct and proper; which ties into the argument that morals are based on religion.  _"Right and wrong"_ are subjective terms that are defined by the societies that use them, and those rules of right and wrong are based on religious belief.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 11, 2011)

I just wanted to say that I have enjoyed reading this thead very much and have had to realise that I cannot add "Thanks" to every single post - so please take it as read that I *have* done so.  Some very cogent and well explained positions :bows to all:.


----------



## seasoned (Aug 11, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> A way back a lot of Americans here were upset at Obama because he didn't give the Queen a present they thought he should but no one here was upset because while you regard him as a _leader_ we regard him as a _politician_. he's climbed the greasy pole of politics and got the top job sure but he's still a politician, he doesn't turn into a demi god becuase he got the top job. We regard him as the representative of your government not the leader of your country, that's how we regard all such as he so there's a big difference in how you perceive your president and how the rest of the world does. so perhaps you shouldn't get so upset with him or any other incumbent if you think he doesn't behave properly on the world stage.


Leaders are hard to find, politicians are a dime a dozen. But, there is protocol that one should follow either way. Sometimes people may mistake the actions of our "leaders" as an indication of all. Maybe not relevant, but 2 cents anyway.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> _"Right and wrong"_ are subjective terms that are defined by the societies that use them, and those rules of right and wrong are based on religious belief.



I would argue that the rules of right and wrong have been codified in the religious tenets of a society but that they do not spring from those religious tenets. 

I know it's my old song so I shall not belabour it but all significant religions, that might be described as "national faiths" were founded as a method of social control by those with the wealth and power to do so. The use of the 'divine' to back up 'law' was a very effective method of maintaining authority (and usurping it in some cases).

The predeliction to so do is rooted in our social behaviours that have evolved to make us so successful as a species - the ability to use fantasy and symbols to convey real messages understood across the social groups was an integral part of our survival in the times when we were scattered bands of hunter gatherers. It's still useful now but the power structures of organised religions have less relevance than they once did and make it all too easy to do ill to our fellow man because A. N. Other Divine Being says it's okay - happily, something the West is finally leaving behind I think.

Anyhow, as I said, it's my old tune so I wont bore everyone with it all again :lol:.

EDIT:  Just wanted to make clear that when I say "Fantasy" I mean it in the sense of the ability to use imagination and description to convey that which is not tangible or visible.  It's the same mental ability that we use to plan for the future or forsee what steps we need to take to achieve a long-term goal.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, we really cannot.  That is one of the three arguments atheists use to attempt to explain why they can have a framework of ethics known as 'morals' and not be religious.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
> 
> Morality is inextricably linked to religion.  Even the Wikipedia article, which ascribes morality to religions, cultures, and societies, does not note that all cultures and societies came from and with religious underpinnings.  There are and have never been atheist societies.


The entire first paragraph just says:
*
Morality* (from the Latin _moralitas_ "manner, character, proper behavior") *is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). *A _moral code_ is a system of morality (*for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.*) and a _moral_ is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. _Immorality_ is the active opposition to morality, while _amorality_ is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.

Nothing in the above says it 'comes from religion'. 
You say our morality is as old as our religious inclinations. I would have to disagree. If we go back, we find evidence that our ancestors likely did not have a sense of culture and religion. There is evidence that Homo neanderthalensis did and maybe one more, but when we go back far enough it is quite clear. They didn't have the brain capacity for it. However, they did have a sense of right and wrong *otherwise we wouldn't be here*. Animals in the wild, show behavior parallel to this. These sets of moral codes was most certainly developed first.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 11, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I would argue that the rules of right and right have been codified in the religious tenets of a society but that they do not spring from those religious tenets.



I have yet to see a definition of 'right' and 'wrong' which is not tied to human belief, religious or otherwise.  It is, then, a human invention, and purely subjective.  And humans has historically been possessed of various religious beliefs, most or all of which presented a codified set of rules or instructions.  In a nutshell, they told believers what was 'right' and 'wrong'.  Has their ever been a society which was not made up of religious believers or inheritors of such a society?  Even the modern communist experiments of the USSR, Vietnam, and the PRC seemed to have been unable to either eradicate religion or base their notions of law and order upon anything other than the traditions and laws which came before, which were clearly based upon the religion claimed by the masses.  There is not one set of rules or laws that has been arrived at without having been derived from religious rules.



> I know it's my old song so I shall not belabour it but all significant religions, that might be described as "national faiths" were founded as a method of social control by those with the wealth and power to do so.  The use of the 'divine' to back up 'law' was a very effective method of maintaining authority (and usurping it in some cases).



I would not deny it.  I have no trouble accepting the shortcomings of any religion's rules, and I definitely accept that religion presented not only a set of ethics and morals by which one was to live, but was and is also a method by which power can be achieved and the masses controlled.

What I have said is that because I have a framework of morality based on my religious beliefs, I can understand what a person running for office means when they describe themselves as a Jew or a Christian; it's not a guarantee that we believe the same things or what the same goals or that he or she is decent, kind, intelligent, or a good leader, but it is a framework upon which to being.  With an atheist, I have no framework, unless they actually are possessed of a set of morals that is quite frankly based upon religion.



> The predeliction to so do is rooted in our social behaviours that have evolved to make us so successful as a species - the ability to use fantasy and symbols to convey real messages understood across the social groups was an integral part of our survival in the times when we were scattered bands of hunter gatherers.  It's still useful now but the power structures of organised religions have less relevance than they once did and make it all too easy to do ill to our fellow man because A. N. Other Divine Being says it's okay - happily, something the West is finally leaving behind I think.
> 
> Anyhow, as I said, it's my old tune so I wont bore everyone with it all again :lol:.



Unfortunately, I think many atheists have a sense of impending attack whenever anyone of faith says anything about them.  I understand this flinch response, but it is not my intent to attack.

There are those who believe that an atheist cannot be a moral person, cannot have any set of moral behaviors, cannot be in any sense 'good' because good and evil are human inventions - and ultimately based upon religious beliefs.  While I agree that morals are indeed based on historical religious beliefs, I do not share the opinion that atheists are therefore devoid of morals, a sense or right or wrong, or are evil beings.  I believe that a person can be good or evil, right or wrong, decent or indecent, without regard to their religious belief or lack of same.  In that sense, I simply do not care if my fellow man is a Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Christian or atheist, so long as they leave me in peace to practice my own beliefs.

But we are not talking about atheism qua atheism.  The subject is, I believe, elected officials.  There are two things I wished to mention.  The first is that in the USA, politicians running for office, especially for national office, are practically compelled to make a faith statement and to be seen practicing that faith.  I wish it were not so, because to me it is little more than a show, a kissing of the public ***.

The second, however, is what I've been expounding upon.  And again, I do not say that an atheist is not fit for office.  I say that I, perhaps like many or most humans, seek common ground and understanding with those who would seek to lead me.  I want them not to rule wisely, but to rule as I would.  I want them not to do the right thing in general, but the things which I think are right.  And although this must seem incredibly selfish, I can't imagine that most Americans are any different.  We want our leaders to represent our own views, not those of some universal goodness for all.

In that pursuit of leaders who represent me and my desires, I use shorthand methods of establishing frameworks that are broad and often incorrect in the details, but which are probably true in the aggregate and until proven otherwise.  I am not a Republican, but I can generally trust that Republican candidates will not seek to take away my guns, for example.  Now, everyone can find examples of Democrats who support gun rights and Republicans who do not, but again, I am speaking of a framework.  A framework is a useful construct, despite its flaws.  I tend to look, therefore, to those candidates who declare themselves conservatives, veterans, religious, and so on.  I can't be certain they'll represent my desires, but they are within the set of candidates which I will examine first.

The question was whether or not an atheist could get my vote.  Certainly he or she could.  But as I said, before I could say whether or not I would vote for a particular atheist, they must first explain to me what they mean by 'right' and 'wrong' and how they came to those decisions.  I say this because they do not provide me with a framework that has any significance to me.  I cannot make even basic assumptions about what an atheist means when they claim to be for 'good' things and against 'bad' things.  Since we do not share a framework, I must know what they mean by that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 11, 2011)

fangjian said:


> The entire first paragraph just says:
> *
> Morality* (from the Latin _moralitas_ "manner, character, proper behavior") *is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). *A _moral code_ is a system of morality (*for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.*) and a _moral_ is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. _Immorality_ is the active opposition to morality, while _amorality_ is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.
> 
> ...



Every society, every culture, was created by religious people.  There have been none which were not.  Even noted experiments in atheistic societies were based upon the societal beliefs about right and wrong which came before them, which were based upon religion.

All human society comes from religion.  Period.  There has never been a time when human beings did not invent religions to suit themselves and create both rules and societies around those beliefs.

Animals have no moral codes.  Morality is a human construct entirely.

What you are describing are survival characteristics which describe traits or patterns, and not morals.  For example, most animals do not kill each other for sport in the wild.  While some may surmise this to be a moral, it is not.  The reason it is not is that there is no punishment for violating it.  A monkey which DOES kill for sport is not put in prison or sentenced to death or even cast out of their group.  Such behavior may be rare, probably because it does not breed group cohesion and therefore long term survival, but it is no moral code.

Morals are rules, and rules imply consequences for breaking them, imposed by the group that embraces them.  Monkeys have no courts, nor do giraffes.  People do.  And all people were religious before they were not.  All rules for living came originally from religious laws and were later absorbed into the culture or society.  They may have come apart from religion, but they all sprang from it.

If I take a jar down from the shelf and it is labeled 'salt' and it appears to be white and granular, I am going to make an assumption that it is salt, unless I have good reason so suspect it is not.  If I take down an unlabeled jar and it appears to be white and granular, I don't know if it is salt or sugar (or soap powder) and I'm going to have to test it to see what it might actually be.  That is entirely what I mean when I say that when a person running for office who describes themselves as an 'atheist' is an unknown quantity to me.  Are they salt, sugar, or soap powder?  I have no frame of reference, no label to guide me.  Labels can be wrong, but if they were not mostly right, there would be no reason to have them.  A person describing themselves as an atheist is not telling me anything about whether they are salt, sugar, or soap powder.  So that information means nothing to me and I won't tend to vote for a person who does not then take the time to describe to me what they actually are in favor of.


----------



## seasoned (Aug 11, 2011)

A persons faith is measured by the bible. You can't measurer it scientifically. I don't want to be a bummer or interject into an otherwise very interesting thread, something at face value, as irrelevant, but, there are some that believe the below verse as factual. No one can read a persons heart but that person, and God, if you are so inclined to believe.  Just my 2 cents, now back to my corner.

Jeremiah 31:31-35
&#8220;I will put my law in their minds 
and write it on their hearts. 
I will be their God, 
and they will be my people. 
 No longer will they teach their neighbor, 
or say to one another, &#8216;Know the LORD,&#8217; 
because they will all know me, 
from the least of them to the greatest,&#8221; 
declares the LORD.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Animals have no moral codes.  Morality is a human construct entirely.
> 
> What you are describing are survival characteristics which describe traits or patterns, and not morals.  For example, most animals do not kill each other for sport in the wild.  While some may surmise this to be a moral, it is not.  The reason it is not is that there is no punishment for violating it.  A monkey which DOES kill for sport is not put in prison or sentenced to death or even cast out of their group.  Such behavior may be rare, probably because it does not breed group cohesion and therefore long term survival, but it is no moral code.Morals are rules, and rules imply consequences for breaking them, imposed by the group that embraces them. Monkeys have no courts, nor do giraffes. People do.



Many animals are social creatures just like us. They have norms taboos etc. There are consequences for _undesirable behavior _within animal societies. Sometimes that punishment is death, sometimes a form of 'silent treatment'. There is reward sometimes for _desirable behavior_ as well, just like us. Sometimes that reward is sex, sometimes it's food etc. 

*Our's* just happens to be *more complex,* Bill. It's like saying _we're the only species that uses tools and can reason._ This is untrue. Ours is just more complex. 


> And all people were religious before they were not.


 huh?

Also a couple posts ago,  I gave you a hypothetical command from the god you say you believe in.





> What if God said " Intercourse with infants pleases me. You are commanded to partake in this ritual once per year"



Do you have an answer?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 11, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Many animals are social creatures just like us. They have norms taboos etc. There are consequences for _undesirable behavior _within animal societies. Sometimes that punishment is death, sometimes a form of 'silent treatment'. There is reward sometimes for _desirable behavior_ as well, just like us. Sometimes that reward is sex, sometimes it's food etc.
> 
> *Our's* just happens to be *more complex,* Bill. It's like saying _we're the only species that uses tools and can reason._ This is untrue. Ours is just more complex.



Sorry, I disagree.



> Also a couple posts ago,  I gave you a hypothetical command from the god you say you believe in.
> 
> What if God said " Intercourse with infants pleases me. You are commanded to partake in this ritual once per year"
> 
> Do you have an answer?



I thought I did answer it.  Many religions have or have had religious laws which commanded the believers or the citizens of that society to do things which I would consider objectionable, immoral, and wrong.

Yet they were clearly part and parcel of those societies and were therefore both moral and 'right' for their own purposes.  I can judge them from my perspective and say they were not right, they were wrong.  However, had I lived in that society at that time, it most likely would have seemed right to me, as it would to most citizens of that society at that time.

You appear to want me to say that religious morals are universal, but I haven't said that and they are not.  With regard to voting for a political candidate, I am unlikely to find myself having to evaluate a candidate who espouses a religion which endorses sex with infants and more likely to find one who claims to be a Christian, Jew, or (less likely) Muslim.  Those candidates are equally unlikely to believe that their God has commanded sex with infants.  However, if I found that to be the case, of course I would not consider voting for them! When a person presents themselves for public office and declares themselves to be an atheist, what is their framework? I have nothing to go on, and hence, as I keep saying, they would have to describe to me what they consider to be right and wrong and why.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 11, 2011)

> Many animals are social creatures just like us. They have norms taboos etc. There are consequences for _undesirable behavior _within animal societies. Sometimes that punishment is death, sometimes a form of 'silent treatment'. There is reward sometimes for _desirable behavior_ as well, just like us. Sometimes that reward is sex, sometimes it's food etc.
> *Our's* just happens to be *more complex,* Bill. It's like saying _we're the only species that uses tools and can reason._ This is untrue. Ours is just more complex.





Bill Mattocks said:


> Sorry, I disagree.


 But how? My statement is just a quick summary of numerous observations of nature. Unless I communicated it poorly. I'm looking at it like I just said 'The Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago', and you say '_I disagree_'. How?!




> I thought I did answer it.  Many religions have or have had religious laws which commanded the believers or the citizens of that society to do things which I would consider objectionable, immoral, and wrong.
> Yet they were clearly part and parcel of those societies and were therefore both moral and 'right' for their own purposes.  I can judge them from my perspective and say they were not right, they were wrong.  However, had I lived in that society at that time, it most likely would have seemed right to me, as it would to most citizens of that society at that time.
> 
> You appear to want me to say that religious morals are universal, but I haven't said that and they are not.  With regard to voting for a political candidate, I am unlikely to find myself having to evaluate a candidate who espouses a religion which endorses sex with infants and more likely to find one who claims to be a Christian, Jew, or (less likely) Muslim.  Those candidates are equally unlikely to believe that their God has commanded sex with infants.  However, if I found that to be the case, of course I would not consider voting for them! When a person presents themselves for public office and declares themselves to be an atheist, what is their framework?


 Yeah but you said things are 'right' because a god said so. That's like a 'universal right/wrong' isn't it? And I wanted _your_ answer. What if Yahweh commanded this of you?


----------



## Aiki Lee (Aug 11, 2011)

I've said this before but everyone has belief and faith in something, whther or not it is religious. Human beings all act on faith in some way because we are not omniscient. You have faith that the doctor operating on you knows what he is doing. You have faith that you martial arts teacher is showing you a practical way to disarm an attacker. You have faith that the physicists know what they are talking about. Belief and faith to me rely on some sort of evidence, whether or not that evidence is enough for someone else is up to them.

Let's take the doctor example. If I'm getting operated on I hope my doctor knows what he is doing. I can look at his degree, his past experience with operations, and the hospitals track record for success, but in the end it comes down to me trusting in the doctor that he is legitimate and competent.

For the physicist, we trust that he has done his calculations correct and he double checks his work and understands what his work is really about. Most of us couldn't do what a high level physicist could and so we have to trust that what he tells us is true and makes sense.

Faith is trust in something, anything. I put my faith where I feel the evidence leads, and if I don't think there is strong enough evidence for something I investigate if I feel it is important enough.

On a separate issue, I believe that all morality stems from a spiritual basis, but not necessarily a religious one. Evolution may play a key part in the formation of our moral reasoning because, after all, it is better for the species as a whole to behave in such a way, but higher degrees of moral functioning are not necessarily beneficial in an evolutionary context alone. Think about the following.

Rape is morally wrong. No one can honestly disagree with this unless you disagree with the concept of morality in the first place. Rape though, could be beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint as it can pass on a person's genes, but it is still unacceptable to humans but is acceptable to other animal species such as dolphins. Thye reason people say rape is wrong is because it violates the rights and dignity of an individual, but if there were no objective moral law that stems outside of a biological reason then why should anybody care? If it's not you or a relative. honestly, why would you care? If you do care it could be the result of social conditioning (which does play a role IMO), but is that a satisfying enough answer?

Reasonably a person doesn't need to justify to another person why it is wrong to do something like this; the fact that it is universally unnacceptable seems to be self-evident that human beings share a connection to each other (and perhaps to some sort of cosmic truth) which creates a sense of morality. This connection, whatever it is, I feel is spirituality and religion is a manmade construct set to explain it. And honestly, i feel some religious concepts are closer to the truth than others.

That's my take on it anyway.


----------



## Buka (Aug 11, 2011)

If I go on the assumption that there is God, then everyone in the various religions are praying to the same entity. I would assume that entity knows that.
If I go on the assumption that God is Santa Claus for adults, then who cares as long as faith helps the person with said faith?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 11, 2011)

fangjian said:


> But how? My statement is just a quick summary of numerous observations of nature. Unless I communicated it poorly. I'm looking at it like I just said 'The Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago', and you say '_I disagree_'. How?!



I disagree human societies evolved without religion at their core, and I do not believe your statements to the contrary.  I don't know more much more clear I can make that.



> Yeah but you said things are 'right' because a god said so. That's like a 'universal right/wrong' isn't it?



No.  One god says one thing, another says something different.  Nothing universal about it.  There have been some nearly-universal taboos that one might argue are close enough to universal to serve the purpose, but they're not that common.



> And I wanted _your_ answer. What if Yahweh commanded this of you?



What purpose would it serve for me to answer this question?  It has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What purpose would it serve for me to answer this question? It has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.



I think that the OP has some sort of preconcieved notion about what "being religious" means and has some odd ideas of how people of "faith" think and act.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 11, 2011)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Thye reason people say rape is wrong is because it violates the rights and dignity of an individual, but if there were no objective moral law that stems outside of a biological reason then why should anybody care? If it's not you or a relative. honestly, why would you care?


I suppose because of the phenomena of _empathy_. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> What purpose would it serve for me to answer this question?  It has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.


Bill you said 





> Ask a religious person why they should not kill. It may take awhile to dig down, but ultimately the reason progresses from the notion that human value has intrinsic value to the notion that killing is 'wrong' to the basic premise; God said so


I am under the suspicion that you think things are 'right' because God says they are. If so, this question is very meaningful. 


Archangel M said:


> I think that the OP has some sort of preconcieved notion about what "being religious" means and has some odd ideas of how people of "faith" think and act.


This may, of course be the case. I would like to know what your view is of my 'preconceived notions', just so I know how I am coming across.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 11, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Bill you said I am under the suspicion that you think things are 'right' because God says they are. If so, this question is very meaningful.
> This may, of course be the case. I would like to know what your view is of my 'preconceived notions', just so I know how I am coming across.



OK, I get it.  Let me try to explain.

Ask anyone in the USA if, for example, murder is wrong.  Most would say 'yes', regardless of their religious beliefs.  Our society does not tolerate murder, and most of us agree with that.

But why is murder wrong?

Murder is wrong, some would say, because it is against the law.  And so it is.  But why is it against the law?

Murder is against the law because that's the way our society wants it to be.  And yes, that makes sense also.  But why does our society want murder to be against the law?

Now here is where things get interesting.  Some might say that murder is against the law because it is wrong; a tautology and an infinite loop.  Others might say that it is illegal because it is against the rules set down by the Creator they believe in, and this is of course a moral response (it is a value judgment) and religiously-based.  Non-religious people might say that it is illegal because it threatens society as a whole.  And I accept this as a logical, non-religious reason to feel that murder should be against the law; it threatens our society in a demonstrable way.  No society could survive if people went around killing each other whenever they felt like it without repercussions.

If a person is running for public office, and they declare themselves to be a Christian, or a Jew perhaps, I do not feel the need to dive down through the layers here.  Murder to them is ultimately wrong, once you peel the onion, because it is against the rules they believe their Creator established.

When someone has a different basis for their core beliefs, then I do not know what they are unless they tell me.  I cannot put that person on the list of people I would tend to vote for unless otherwise persuaded; their entire base must be a question mark to me, and hence my question to them about what they feel is right and wrong and how they arrive at that decision.

And getting back to murder - while it is entirely acceptable to me if a person feels that murder should be against the law because it damages society as opposed to being against the Word of God, the axiom that would tend to flow from that basis is that if an action is not damaging to society, then it ought to be legal.  There are many behaviors which may not damage society and I do not want them to be legal.  They are, on the other hand, against moral codes that my religion holds, so I would tend to vote for a person who has that same framework.  After all, as I said previously, I want my elected officials to represent MY values, not just logical values.  My values may not be based on the damage some actions do to society, but simply based on the fact that I feel they are 'wrong'.  And it is perfectly valid for me to feel this way, and to vote this way.  And a statement of faith by a candidate helps me find leaders to vote for who feel that way too.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And getting back to murder - .



And, getting back to morality being a construct, there have been and are human societies and circumstances where "murder" is not immoral, but the morally right thing to do.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 11, 2011)

elder999 said:


> And, getting back to morality being a construct, there have been and are human societies and circumstances where "murder" is not immoral, but the morally right thing to do.


Right. Ultimately it is something that can not be answered with* certainty* like the question 'What is an electron?' We do not and probably never 'know what it is really'. We can only create models that describe its behavior. With morality, we can come with sensible models that will predict a favorable outcome. If we come up with the goal being, 'To maximize human well being for as long as possible'. There are demonstrable ways to do that. The culture that the Taliban want to instate is one that is _measurably_ not as good as others. It is a 'good' thing to recruit kids to destroy themselves and others because it is what AlLah commands. However, I won't concede that it is all just relative and blah blah, like Anthropologists of old.  Human well being can be measurable, and what is right and wrong can most certainly be a scientific question.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 11, 2011)

fangjian said:


> . Human well being can be measurable, and what is right and wrong can most certainly be a scientific question.



Well being for a heroin addict with a 20 year addiction is getting his bump on, every day. Is that right, or is it wrong?

How is the Taliban culture measurably not as good as others-if we simply measure "human well being" with Maslow's heirarchy of needs, Taliban culture might be measurably ideal....for the _Taliban_, anyway.

"Well being" is a construct, as are, largely, "right and wrong."


----------



## fangjian (Aug 11, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Well being for a heroin addict with a 20 year addiction is getting his bump on, every day. Is that right, or is it wrong?
> 
> How is the Taliban culture measurably not as good as others-if we simply measure "human well being" with Maslow's heirarchy of needs, Taliban culture might be measurably ideal....for the _Taliban_, anyway.
> 
> "Well being" is a construct, as are, largely, "right and wrong."


Yeah I know.  I don't have any evidence that it is something that is 'objectively known to beings outside of existence'. We create it as we go. And it will change with the times. But you have to set up a goal and go from there. Like the fist presupposition is 'The universe exists' from there we can learn from it. If your presupposition is 'The universe doesn't really exist'. What will you accomplish from that first presupposition? Not much. So with an idea like 'right and wrong', you have to make some type of presupposition like 'Are their ways that are better than others when addressing the issue of 'human well being'? Yes some ways *have* to be better than others. In maximizing human well being, would it be 'good' if we could set up some type of bomb where it causes extreme pain, sickness, etc. and then destroys all humans on Earth  ? Would that maximize human well being, or are there other things we can do that may be more productive (per the first presupposition)?  Some questions will be hard to answer, but it doesn't mean there aren't any.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 11, 2011)

elder999 said:


> And, getting back to morality being a construct, there have been and are human societies and circumstances where "murder" is not immoral, but the morally right thing to do.



But not this society and not my religion.  Our morals, like our laws, reflect the majority's Judeo-Christian beliefs and the basis for them.  My point remains this - religion is a useful framework for me to consider political candidates.  Not guaranteed to be accurate, not a promise of certain behavior or voting, but a framework for evaluation, which is useful to me and beats the heck out of having no framework whatsoever to use.

I do not find myself in quandaries over whether or not a person who runs for office and declares himself a Christian is actually a member of some other society where murder is lauded as a moral imperative.  He isn't, unless statements are very much a lie.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 11, 2011)

fangjian said:


> . In maximizing human well being, would it be 'good' if* we could set up some type of bomb where it causes extreme pain, sickness, etc.* and then destroys all humans on Earth ? Would that maximize human well being, or are there other things we can do that may be more productive (per the first presupposition)? Some questions will be hard to answer, but it doesn't mean there aren't any.



Ya know, nearly 70 years ago, we did just that: set up some type of bomb that caused extreme pain, sickness, death, and we spent the better part of the next 35 years in great fear of it being used to destroy all life on Earth. At the place where that device was invented, the argument still rages, 70 years later, over whether it was right or wrong to invent the damned thing in the first place, and whether it was right or wrong to actually use it. Both sides have convincing arguments, about which they are completely adamant-and both sides think they are taking the "moral" high ground, because, well, there is no "right or wrong"-there is no answer.



Bill Mattocks said:


> But not this society and not my religion. Our morals, like our laws, reflect the majority's Judeo-Christian beliefs and the basis for them. My point remains this - religion is a useful framework for me to consider political candidates. Not guaranteed to be accurate, not a promise of certain behavior or voting, but a framework for evaluation, which is useful to me and beats the heck out of having no framework whatsoever to use.



And, while not in complete agreement, I agree with most of your post on this. Me, I've got no problem with the hypothetical atheist candidate-in fact, I'm fairly certain we've had atheists that allowed themselves to be portrayed as "Christians" to hold public office, just as California once had a declared atheist governor who was, perhaps, the highest office holder ever of that type in this country.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 11, 2011)

fangjian said:


> With morality, we can come with sensible models that will predict a favorable outcome.



But I have no reason to believe that all atheists embrace this model.  So I still have no framework.  If they wish to explain to me that this is how they arrive at their determination of 'good' and 'evil', I will certainly consider it. But again, I SAID THAT.  Answer me the question and I will consider voting for an atheist politician.  Without a framework, they must either answer those questions for me or I will not vote for them.  It's really as simple as that.  I do not know what their framework is.  I cannot assume all atheists believe X, Y, or Z as a basis.



> If we come up with the goal being, 'To maximize human well being for as long as possible'. There are demonstrable ways to do that. The culture that the Taliban want to instate is one that is _measurably_ not as good as others. It is a 'good' thing to recruit kids to destroy themselves and others because it is what AlLah commands. However, I won't concede that it is all just relative and blah blah, like Anthropologists of old.  Human well being can be measurable, and what is right and wrong can most certainly be a scientific question.



You presume we want the same things, I think.  We do not.  I don't want a Utopian society, or one anything like what you've described.  I already have a framework for right and wrong, and I like it.  What I want is political leaders who want what I want.  Choosing those who call themselves 'Christian' is a valid way to find a short list of candidates to consider further; just as I have said I would do for veterans and self-proclaimed conservatives.

Not only do I have no reason to believe that all atheists want what you have described above, but if they said they did, I would most certainly not vote for them.  I do not want that kind of society and I surely won't vote for one or vote for anyone who does.


----------



## granfire (Aug 11, 2011)

I have not read everything...
But here is a question:
How do you know if the person running for office really gives a crap and is not just a sociopath, able to tell everybody what they want to hear but basically only believing in their own advancement?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 11, 2011)

granfire said:


> I have not read everything...
> But here is a question:
> How do you know if the person running for office really gives a crap and is not just a sociopath, able to tell everybody what they want to hear but basically only believing in their own advancement?


You can't know anything for sure. I think that is generally what most sociopaths do to appear to function normally in society. Why?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 11, 2011)

granfire said:


> I have not read everything...
> But here is a question:
> How do you know if the person running for office really gives a crap and is not just a sociopath, able to tell everybody what they want to hear but basically only believing in their own advancement?



There are not many ways to be certain.  We certainly have a lot of crooked politicians, and I tend to think that many or most of them are more interested in power, sex, and money than in the good of the nation or community they serve.

However, if one refuses to believe anything about anyone, then one is forced to either not vote, or to spend enormous amounts of time to find the candidates that do represent their interests; by examining their voting records, their public statements, who their major donors are and what they want, and so on.

And while it is always good to be informed about the people for whom one votes, there simply isn't the time (and sometimes the information available) to put together a dossier on every candidate for whom one might vote.

Therefore, frameworks are useful constructs to establish basic similar backgrounds, beliefs, and interests.

I can make some basic assumptions to get a short list of candidates whom I do wish to do more research on, a much more manageable proposition.  Veterans top that list for me, followed by conservatives and Christians and Jews.  Of course they could be lying to me.  But without a framework to being with, I can't possibly do the appropriate research to make informed decisions about all potential candidates in every race I might vote in.  So in lieu of anything else, a Republican who is a veteran and a Christian or Jew would get my vote if I had nothing else to go on in a given race.  I could end up sorry for having voted that way, but it's the best bet I've got when I have no other method to arrive at a rational decision.

How does anyone make decisions about anything?  Very often, we rely on frameworks.  For example, a restaurant.  If one has been there before, one might order something one has had before.  Or, if one has never been there before, one might order something familiar from the menu that one likes in general.  There is no guarantee that the meal will be the same as it was before, or the same as it is sold in other restaurants, but it's a useful framework if one is seeking a known quantity.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 11, 2011)

Society tells many more people what is "right and wrong" than religion.  Most of the time, religion is bent to society norms instead of the other way around.  For this and other reasons I do not think religion is either an indicator nor a prerequisite of morality.  Most people find certain behaviours repugnant and would not do it.  It wouldn't matter thier religion or lack of religion.  Other behaviours can be justified, no matter how bad an effect it has on individuals or society, again this is not dependant upon religion or lack thereof.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 11, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Society tells many more people what is "right and wrong" than religion.



All society is based on religion.



> Most of the time, religion is bent to society norms instead of the other way around.  For this and other reasons I do not think religion is either an indicator nor a prerequisite of morality.



You would be incorrect.  Morality is a definition of right and wrong as established by religion, society, or culture.  With culture and society being established by religion, making in all, one cause.



> Most people find certain behaviours repugnant and would not do it.



That is a taboo, not a moral value.  Taboos appear to be nearly universal (although not entirely so) and may be related to animal instincts.  Examples of taboos include eating human flesh and extreme incest.  You would not find that 'most people' would not fail to stop at a stop sign, cheat on their taxes, speed, take drugs, or have sex outside of marriage left to their own devices.  Those are either morals or laws based on morals.  They are far from universal.  There is no innate inner code urging people to share their harvest, remain faithful to their spouses, or for males to remain with families while raising children.  In fact, if there is any inner code in those cases, it is quite the opposite.



> It wouldn't matter thier religion or lack of religion.  Other behaviours can be justified, no matter how bad an effect it has on individuals or society, again this is not dependant upon religion or lack thereof.



Everyone justifies their behavior, whether they are religious or not.  And they quite often do not behave as their own moral code would insist they should.  But that's not the point.  Because I have a framework based upon religious moral values, and I like those religious moral values, I want my society to reflect that and so seek political leaders who also claim those values.  As I said, they may not be telling the truth, but this is a framework and not an absolute.

You seem to think I am assigning values to religion as being good and atheism as being bad; I'm not.  I am saying that when I seek like minds, I look to the labels that are the same as my own, which makes perfect sense.  Why would I look to the unknown value that an atheist represents to lead me BEFORE looking to one of my own, such as a veteran, a conservative, or a religious person?

Can atheists be good people?  Yes, of course.  Would I vote for one?  Perhaps, if they took the time to explain to me what their concept of right and wrong is, and how they arrived at those value judgments.  But if they cannot or choose not to explain those things to me, I will not vote for them.  They may be good; they may actually represent what I want in society; but I'll never know it because we have no common framework and they are a question mark to me.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All society is based on religion.
> You would be incorrect.  Morality is a definition of right and wrong as established by religion, society, or culture.  With culture and society being established by religion, making in all, one cause.


 In all my studies in Biological and Cultural Anthropology, that just doesn't seem right to me at all. However I won't act as if I 'know' something, so I won't respond. 





> Everyone justifies their behavior, whether they are religious or not.  And they quite often do not behave as their own moral code would insist they should.  But that's not the point.  Because I have a framework based upon religious moral values, and I like those religious moral values, I want my society to reflect that and so seek political leaders who also claim those values.  As I said, they may not be telling the truth, but this is a framework and not an absolute.
> 
> You seem to think I am assigning values to religion as being good and atheism as being bad; I'm not.  I am saying that when I seek like minds, I look to the labels that are the same as my own, which makes perfect sense.  Why would I look to the unknown value that an atheist represents to lead me BEFORE looking to one of my own, such as a veteran, a conservative, or a religious person?
> 
> Can atheists be good people?  Yes, of course.  Would I vote for one?  Perhaps, if they took the time to explain to me what their concept of right and wrong is, and how they arrived at those value judgments.  But if they cannot or choose not to explain those things to me, I will not vote for them.  They may be good; they may actually represent what I want in society; but I'll never know it because we have no common framework and they are a question mark to me.


Of course. You make perfect sense. It's the same as what I do. If I hear of a candidate being an Atheist I have an idea in my head of what they likely think, believe etc. If the candidate is a Mormon I have an idea of what they may think, believe, as well. Obviously, the Mormon's likely approach in evaluating the world around them, is completely different than mine. I just simply do not understand it. 

Back at the first page, everyone just thought I was a jerk, but *we all do this*.


----------



## Carol (Aug 11, 2011)

fangjian said:


> In all my studies in Biological and Cultural Anthropology, that just doesn't seem right to me at all. However I won't act as if I 'know' something, so I won't respond. Of course. You make perfect sense. It's the same as what I do. If I hear of a candidate being an Atheist I have an idea in my head of what they likely think, believe etc. If the candidate is a Mormon I have an idea of what they may think, believe, as well. Obviously, the Mormon's likely approach in evaluating the world around them, is completely different than mine. I just simply do not understand it.
> 
> Back at the first page, everyone just thought I was a jerk, but *we all do this*.




But is what you described truly what you are doing?  Or are you taking other factors in to account?   I think its the latter -- or at least I would hope.

I think there is a difference between being enthusiastic because a candidate has a certain attribute, and voting strictly on that attribute.  Personally, I'm enthusiastic about women in politics.  But I wouldn't vote for a candidate strictly because she was female.  I've volunteered for a few campaigns before, last year I worked on Kelly Ayotte's campaign for U.S. Senate (she won).  I talked to a few people other volunteers that would meet me and chuckle something like "Yeah, Kelly is sure bringing women over to her side."   I didn't support her because she was female, although I am enthusiastic about women in politics.  I supported her because I thought she did a good job as AG.

Some folks voted for President Obama because he is black.  Some folks didn't vote for him because he is black.  I am thrilled that I got to see the day where we elected a person of color to the highest office in the nation.  However, President Obama is not my cup of tea.  

In states where judges are elected, I've friends of mine ask  "How do you vote for them?" and receive an answer like "I vote out the incumbents," or "I do (pattern x)"    My mom blows a gasket when she hears stuff like that.  "These are where our laws come from, and nobody researches how the judges make their decisions".

Same with the folks that vote a straight ticket.   I can understand the sentiment, I was a Republican in 2000 and voted a nearly straight ticket myself. But that behaviour elected Tom Alciere.    

I guess I chalk it up to the same behaviour as the well-intentioned-but-annoying older Asian lady in my neighborhood that keeps approaching me saying stuff like "You engineer?  You wanna meet my son? He MBA."  IThere may be many that take shortcuts, build stereotypes, and use an economy of words, when relating to other people, but I'm not convinced that it is a sound strategy to use upon election.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 11, 2011)

Carol said:


> But is what you described truly what you are doing?  Or are you taking other factors in to account?   I think its the latter -- or at least I would hope.


 Yeah I wouldn't vote for an Atheist that was also a White Supremacist. It's not *everything* of course. All things being equal though I will lean to the Atheist as Bill would lean toward the Christian. 


> I think there is a difference between being enthusiastic because a candidate has a certain attribute, and voting strictly on that attribute.  Personally, I'm enthusiastic about women in politics.  But I wouldn't vote for a candidate strictly because she was female.  I've volunteered for a few campaigns before, last year I worked on Kelly Ayotte's campaign for U.S. Senate (she won).  I talked to a few people other volunteers that would meet me and chuckle something like "Yeah, Kelly is sure bringing women over to her side."   I didn't support her because she was female, although I am enthusiastic about women in politics.  I supported her because I thought she did a good job as AG.


 Me and my wife always would say we would vote for a Non white candidate or a female candidate just because they are non white or female. It's not entirely absolute of course. But I've always felt that if a female was elected, even if her opponent was slightly more experienced or qualified, it would be a good thing for the nation. 


> There may be many that take shortcuts, build stereotypes, and use an economy of words, when relating to other people, but I'm not convinced that it is a sound strategy to use upon election.


 Yeah like I said above, it's not *everything*. But as an example, if a candidate believed that the world was ending soon due to revelation, I just can't support that.  I do not think that is rude. The decisions they make will be the _product of a mind that thinks the world is ending soon_. A mind that thinks they have an eternal consciousness and soul, will make decisions based off of that presupposition. If a mind that thinks, supernatural deities speak to them and inform them on what laws to enact,idk,  I just can't support it. That's scary. What if they think a god tells them to invade a certain country. GW, Sarah Palin etc. I've heard them say things like that. " God was speaking to me and he said blah blah blah. "  I don't like the idea of laws being enacted or any other decision being made that thinks 'gods are talking to them'.


----------



## Carol (Aug 11, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Yeah like I said above, it's not *everything*. But as an example, if a candidate believed that the world was ending soon due to revelation, I just can't support that.  I do not think that is rude. The decisions they make will be the _product of a mind that thinks the world is ending soon_. A mind that thinks they have an eternal consciousness and soul, will make decisions based off of that presupposition. If a mind that thinks, supernatural deities speak to them and inform them on what laws to enact,idk,  I just can't support it. That's scary. What if they think a god tells them to invade a certain country. GW, Sarah Palin etc. I've heard them say things like that. " God was speaking to me and he said blah blah blah. "  I don't like the idea of laws being enacted or any other decision being made that thinks 'gods are talking to them'.



I have heard them say that too, and don't care for the message.  However, where I differ is that I can't take them seriously that they mean that in a literal context.   I do not believe for a minute that they would be toting out those lines if they did not have the evangelical Protestant base that they had.  They are politicians with an extensive machine behind them to keep them on-message.  Its throwing red meat to their base.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All society is based on religion.



Sorry Bill, much as I respect you and your ability to persuasively frame an argument, that is just incorrect (speaking as someone with a more than passing interest in the history of civilisation, Western civilisation in particular).  The same as the idea that religions are the basis for morality is incorrect.

Religions are, in general terms, adjuncts and control mechanisms strapped onto societies by those who seek to direct those societies - they are not the basis of the formation of society, tho' they have often been used to codify and enforce cohesion as a society develops.

I won't argue against your feelings on this matter of elected officials as that is your personal choice but it's not good debating form to promote historical and anthropological assertions (that are not really 'evidence' based) and portray them as ineluctable truth.   Addendum: not that I am blameless in that regard myself :lol:,

EDIT:  I'm not saying that that is a deliberate deception by the way; just a consequence of the path your own life has followed leading you to see things through a certain filter (just like my own father ... and *me*  ).


----------



## Buka (Aug 11, 2011)

granfire said:


> I have not read everything...
> the person running for office really gives a crap and is not just a sociopath, able to tell everybody what they want to hear but basically only believing in their own advancement?



You just described every elected official I've ever known.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All society is based on religion.



Sorry, Bill-I gotta disagree. All my study of religion, history and current events-especially current events-demonstrate that, their founder's orignial thoughts and motives aside, all religion is shaped by society.

THe Chinese, btw, have been basically atheistic (as in the true meaning of the word; _without *god*_) for most of their history, though they have had more than a few religions/philosophical systems (though arguably godless ones) influence their culture from time to time.....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 12, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Sorry Bill, much as I respect you and your ability to persuasively frame an argument, that is just incorrect (speaking as someone with a more than passing interest in the history of civilisation, Western civilisation in particular).



You're not looking far enough back. The first societies were bands or tribes of inter-related individuals who banded together for protection and to leverage their abilities to hunt and gather food and create shelter.  They were religious beings, and the rules of their society show that; our discoveries of the burial sites of the oldest creatures we should label human shows that human bodies were buried in accordance with their religious laws, preparing the body for a presume afterlife, and so on.  These are clearly religious laws that were being followed, and at a time when any other 'rules' a tiny tribal society would have would be in their infancy, certainly not codified on tablets or carved in stone.

If, however, you wish to argue that more modern civilizations - say, from the time of the Egyptian pharaohs - used religion as a control structure and that the religions did not predate the society in question, I could concede your point; but not without the addendum that the rules of the society were still based upon religious law. If one wishes to argue that secular authority (the Pharaoh) and religious law (the high priests) were inseparable, the distinction would be one without a difference.  The basis of my argument remains; society has never existed without religion and without religious law forming both the basis and the framework of secular law.

In short, there has never been a human society that did not base their civil law either directly or indirectly from the religious laws that came before it and which religion was embraced by the majority of the citizenry.  They are intertwined, interlocked, interwoven, part of the warp and woof of all societies.



> The same as the idea that religions are the basis for morality is incorrect.



There is no morality outside of human perception.  Humans are more religious than they are not, and by a lot.  Humans decide what is moral and what is not.  Religious humans.  And the codes that they have come up with quite often deal with issues that reflect no independent rationalization based upon presumed damage to society, but instead a presumption of what their Creator wanted.  For example, rules against masturbation, divination, when and what to eat, homosexuality, and so on.  These were (and in some cases are) moral judgments, made by men, according to religious laws of their time and society.

Religion is the basis for all morality.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 12, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Sorry, Bill-I gotta disagree. All my study of religion, history and current events-especially current events-demonstrate that, their founder's orignial thoughts and motives aside, all religion is shaped by society.



Let us say, then, that they shape each other.  However, the basis for morality, ie, what is "Good" and what is "Bad" is religious.



> THe Chinese, btw, have been basically atheistic (as in the true meaning of the word; _without *god*_) for most of their history, though they have had more than a few religions/philosophical systems (though arguably godless ones) influence their culture from time to time.....



I disagree.  The current Chinese government is officially atheist.  This is no different, really, from the US government, which is officially secular.  The Chinese people, though not as religious as most civilizations throughout much of their modern history (from say the Han dynasty on), were indeed religious and to some extent, remain so to this day.  Shenism is a collection of minority but native religions, and the official stance towards it throughout China's history has been acceptance.  They have only tried to 'stop' Christianity from spreading.  They were rather tolerant of Buddhism and Taoism, but I could accept that some would say they are not religions in some sense.

Chinese morality is no less based on their own religious laws of antiquity than ours is. Their "Mandate of Heaven" is no different from the "Divine Right of Kings."

The Chinese moral code is actually written down:

&#20161; &#32681; &#31036; &#26234; &#20449; &#24544; &#23389; &#24716;

It's remarkably similar to the Christian Ten Commandments, although dealing more with filial piety than the Ten Commandments.  It also contains the Golden Rule.

The pictograph for 'righteousness' is the sacrifice of a sheep to the gods.

Moral codes are based upon religious laws.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 12, 2011)

So, just something to toss in: Chimpanzees perform ritual displays in response to the elements. It is not impossible that these are the precursors to animist religion. They have a strict, linear dominance hierarchy, largely enforced by the higher chimp intimidating or beating the crap out of the lower one when he's been 'slighted' - Close to law, but not quite yet. They transmit learned behaviour between generations, although much less of it than we do. They defend territory, and packs will even hunt and kill other packs in order to increase territory. 

So, within limits, is it possible for a chimpanzee to call something 'good' or 'bad'?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 12, 2011)

cdunn said:


> So, just something to toss in: Chimpanzees perform ritual displays in response to the elements. It is not impossible that these are the precursors to animist religion. They have a strict, linear dominance hierarchy, largely enforced by the higher chimp intimidating or beating the crap out of the lower one when he's been 'slighted' - Close to law, but not quite yet. They transmit learned behaviour between generations, although much less of it than we do. They defend territory, and packs will even hunt and kill other packs in order to increase territory.
> 
> So, within limits, is it possible for a chimpanzee to call something 'good' or 'bad'?



Good question.  I wonder if you could also consider their _"response to the elements"_ to be religion?  I can't say I know the answer to either one.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 12, 2011)

A "moral code," similarities to the Ten Commandments aside, does not a "religion" make.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 12, 2011)

elder999 said:


> A "moral cod," similarities to the Ten Commandments aside, does not a "religion" make.



No, of course it does not.  I did attempt to point out that the Chinese, like all humans, had various religions long before the current atheistic government, and from which their morals came.  Morals do not make religion, but religion makes morals.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, of course it does not. I did attempt to point out that the Chinese, like all humans, had various religions long before the current atheistic government, and from which their morals came. Morals do not make religion, but religion makes morals.



ANd I did point out that "Atheistic" really means "without god,"which is what the major religions of China: Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism-are. Without gods....further, if you look closely at these, you'll see that they either are products of Chinese society, or encourage their devotees to be apart from that society.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 12, 2011)

elder999 said:


> ANd I did point out that "Atheistic" really means "without god,"which is what the major religions of China: Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism-are. Without gods....further, if you look closely at these, you'll see that they either are products of Chinese society, or encourage their devotees to be apart from that society.



I think you're splitting hairs here.  First, the Chinese had religions of various sorts before the more recent ones you mentioned.  Second, even 'godless' religions such as Taoism have ancestor and 'immortal' worship, which an atheist would not, I suspect, accept as real.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think you're splitting hairs here. First, the Chinese had religions of various sorts before the more recent ones you mentioned. Second, even 'godless' religions such as Taoism have ancestor and 'immortal' worship, which an atheist would not, I suspect, accept as real.



Yes, I'm splitting hairs. Of course, I know Buddhists and Taoists who vehemently insist that they're atheists. As for the Chinese having religions of various sorts (just as all people did) none of those are the basis of society. You simply cannot state that all societies are based in religion, any more than you can say that all moral values do.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 12, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Yes, I'm splitting hairs. Of course, I know Buddhists and Taoists who vehemently insist that they're atheists. As for the Chinese having religions of various sorts (just as all people did) none of those are the basis of society. You simply cannot state that all societies are based in religion, any more than you can say that all moral values do.



Well, I *did* state it.  So there. :soapbox:


----------



## elder999 (Aug 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, I *did* state it. So there. :soapbox:



Well, given that *all* morals are subjective, you can just go right ahead and do that. Doesn't make it any less wrong.

Morals come from a variety of places. It is societal and also genetic. There are societies in Africa where it's the moral thing for fathers to ritually deflower their daughters-yes, still. This one is actually based on _religion_, but most of us would argue that it's immoral.......


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 12, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Well, given that *all* morals are subjective, you can just go right ahead and do that. Doesn't make it any less wrong.
> 
> Morals come from a variety of places. It is societal and also genetic. There are societies in Africa where it's the moral thing for fathers to ritually deflower their daughters-yes, still. This one is actually based on _religion_, but most of us would argue that it's immoral.......



If morals are subjective (and I would agree), then they are arguably not genetic.  I have spoken to the issue of taboos, which I do not consider part of a moral code.  Taboos may be genetic, I don't know; but I suspect no one knows for certain.  Even taboos are not universal, of course.

And I've never argued that morals are the same from religion to religion, from culture to culture.  

To be honest, I am really only interested in the here and now for the purposes of this thread.  The question was whether or not I would have any problem voting for an avowed atheist.  My answer was that first I would have to know what his concept of "doing the right thing" was, and from whence he got it.  

As you say, morals are not universal.  If he derives his sense of right and wrong, good and evil, from the same sources most of us Westerners from a basic Judeo-Christian background do, then we have some common ground (although I would then argue that he's not really an atheist, since he accepts a religious set of rules to run his non-religious life, but that's another story).  If he has a different framework for deriving what is good and what is evil, then he's going to have to explain it to me, because we have no common framework for me to work from to understand what he would vote for.

When a candidate states that they are a Christian, I have some sense of their moral framework, and I can proceed to look more closely at that candidate after making some basic assumptions (which of course can be quite false, but still, frameworks are useful tools).

I keep reading the same comments about morals - that they come from culture and society and not religion.  But that's just not true.  They come from all three, demonstrably, prema facie.  And I argue, though it appears many deny it, that society and culture come from religious people and hence, religious notions about right and wrong, good and evil.  Hence, morals come from religion.

Well fine.  Let's just say for the sake of argument that morals do NOT come from religion. Are you telling me that I can make assumptions about an atheist running for office and his or her sense of right and wrong, good and evil, the same way I can about a self-avowed Christian?  If their morals do not come from the same place, then I still posit that the answer is 'no'.

As you say, morals are not subjective.  And whether or not they stem from religion, I can reasonably expect an atheist to have a different set of moral values than a Christian. And being a Christian, I like Christian morals for the most part, and I will tend to want to vote for those politicians who exemplify these values.  An atheist - as you keep pointing out - does not (assuming they do not simply adhere to current common social morals, which I still argue are based on religion).  In either case, whether morals come from religion or not; I am left without the ability to make any reasonable assumptions about what an atheist believes vis-a-vis right and wrong, good and evil.   If I cannot make assumptions, then either they must explain themselves to me, or I will not vote for them.  I think that's pretty reasonable.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As you say, morals are not subjective. And whether or not they stem from religion, I can reasonably expect an atheist to have a different set of moral values than a Christian. And being a Christian, I like Christian morals for the most part, and I will tend to want to vote for those politicians who exemplify these values. An atheist - as you keep pointing out - does not (assuming they do not simply adhere to current common social morals, which I still argue are based on religion). In either case, whether morals come from religion or not; I am left without the ability to make any reasonable assumptions about what an atheist believes vis-a-vis right and wrong, good and evil. If I cannot make assumptions, then either they must explain themselves to me, or I will not vote for them. I think that's pretty reasonable.



I think you mean "morals are subjective."

I don't think that you can make assumptions about where a person stands on right and wrong based on their avowed faith.

Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert both claimed to be Christians-ministers, even-and both did "morally wrong" things-things that they knew were wrong.

Bill Clinton claims to be a Christian, ****ed an intern,and  lied about it on national TV and to Congress. He also claims he didn't inhale.
Jimmy Carter claims to be a Christian, and "lusted  in his heart." He also has long advocated the legalization of marijuana.
Barack Obama claims to be a Christian, went to a "goddam America" liberation theology church, and inhaled ALOT.
Gary Johnson claims to be a Christian, is a somewhat exploitive capitalist, and advocates the legalization of marijuana.
Ronald Reagan claimed to be a Christian, had the most felony indictments of any Presidential administration ever, and had a wife who famously said "Just say no."
George Bush claimed to be a Christian, covered up his Air National Guard record, drunk driving and cocaine use, lied our way into war in Iraq, committed war crimes, advocated the use of torture, and set up sweetheart deals that made his friends LOTS of money. Don't have any idea how he feels about marijuana.....
...you get my point though. Any of these men,as PResident, might have given the order to murder someone, and murder is, withing a "Judeo-Christian" moral framework, wrong.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 12, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I think you mean "morals are subjective."



Yes, typo, thank you.



> I don't think that you can make assumptions about where a person stands on right and wrong based on their avowed faith.



I can.  I have to.  And most of us do.



> Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert both claimed to be Christians-ministers, even-and both did "morally wrong" things-things that they knew were wrong.
> 
> Bill Clinton claims to be a Christian, ****ed an intern,and  lied about it on national TV and to Congress. He also claims he didn't inhale.
> Jimmy Carter claims to be a Christian, and "lusted  in his heart." He also has long advocated the legalization of marijuana.
> ...



I believe I've said that, and in this thread.  Being a Christian does not guarantee that the person so proclaiming is one, or acts like one, or acts (to be more precise) like one is supposed to act.  It is only a starting place.

What I have said is that like a person declaring themselves a conservative, or a veteran, their stated label allows me to assume a *common framework* exists, and this lets me put them on the 'short list' of people whom I will examine more closely.  I can look at voting records, endorsements, major campaign contributors, and so on, to try to help me make a decision about whom to vote for.  I cannot simply throw my hands in the air, declare that there is no way to make any assumptions about anyone, and do all the homework on every candidate for office; there isn't time, and I haven't the energy or the desire to do it.

I hope, as I've said, that if I assume a common framework exists based on a candidate's statements, that if they are a liar, i will discover it in the process of looking more closely at them.  Failing that, I may end up being hoodwinked - but I'll be no less hoodwinked than if I made no assumptions before looking at their credentials, and I don't vote for people whose records I have not checked.

Like it or not, Jeff, when a person declares themselves to be an atheist, I don't even have a framework to begin from, not even a potentially faulty on.  So they don't make my short list, which means I won't look deeper at them, unless as I said, they take the time to explain to me what their concept of 'doing the right thing' is and from whence they derive it.

We all work this way, although perhaps many of us are not conscious of it.  We don't simply refuse to acknowledge that some things are alike and can be judged on that basis correctly most of the time.  We instead rely upon our past experiences and our shared values to create shortcuts that allow use to get through our day without deeply and critically examining everything everyone says and assuming that all statements are false unless proven true.

I know that when I go to a restaurant I like, I often tend to order what I've had before, because I like it.  But there is no guarantee it will be good this time.  When traveling, I tend eat at restaurant chains I have been to before, because I know what to expect.  I might not get the desired result, but it's a reasonable framework to begin with.

So I look for candidates for political office who are veterans and self-described Christians and conservatives, as I believe that these values, if they truly hold them, are reflective of what I really want in a political leader.  I'll look most deeply at those candidates first, and hope that if I do vote for them, they are not liars.

Ultimately, I have answered the question that was asked in this thread over and over again.  I can't think of any other way to answer it.  One may take issue with my methods, but they are MY methods and I will continue to use them.  They can't be false, they are mine and therefore correct for me.  All I seem to be hearing is an argument that morals are not derived from religion, which is utterly beside the point, atheists are good people too, which I agree with and it also utterly beside the point, and that Christians cannot be trusted but atheists can, which I reject out of hand as the purest form of BS known to man.  Oh, and one person's assertion that I should want what atheists want because they, not being religious, only want the betterment of mankind; which as I've said, is not on my list of things I want.  So apparently, I am to take it that I must vote for any atheist candidate, because they are for things I am not for, but that's OK because Christians are bad, and oh by the way, morals which are good do not come from Christians, only the bad ones do.  OK, right.  Have fun with that, guys.  I'm going to keep voting the way I vote, m'kay?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All I seem to be hearing is an argument that morals are not derived from religion, which is utterly beside the point, atheists are good people too, which I agree with and it also utterly beside the point, and that Christians cannot be trusted but atheists can, which I reject out of hand as the purest form of BS known to man.


I am just using the same kind of familiar framework thing you're talking about. It's not that I don't trust 'Christians' particularly. My problem is that people make decisions according to how they view the world. If those views are something like: 'Gods want America to invade Iraq' or 'Gods think homosexuals are sinful', then they don't get my support. 


> Oh, and one person's assertion that I should want what atheists want because they, not being religious, only want the betterment of mankind; which as I've said, is not on my list of things I want.


I don't know what you want. I am just trying to think of a framework for what morals are. It just went something like 'Maximize human well being'. That's just the first thing I thought of. Do you have a better model? What is your framework on deciding what is right/wrong?





> So apparently, I am to take it that I must vote for any atheist candidate,


 No, I never said that. That misunderstanding was fixed in my back and forth with Carol, remember? 





> but that's OK because Christians are bad,


 Now you're just being silly.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 12, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I am just using the same kind of familiar framework thing you're talking about. It's not that I don't trust 'Christians' particularly. My problem is that people make decisions according to how they view the world. If those views are something like: 'Gods want America to invade Iraq' or 'Gods think homosexuals are sinful', then they don't get my support.



So you have the same kind of framework I do, it's just that yours does not trust Christians to represent your viewpoint.  Seems reasonable to me.  Mine does. I don't really see a difference here, except in how we choose our frameworks.



> I don't know what you want. I am just trying to think of a framework for what morals are. It just went something like 'Maximize human well being'. That's just the first thing I thought of. Do you have a better model?



I do not have a model for a better world.  I am not a progressive who wants change.  I want NOT change.  And as I've said, I don't want to make the world a better place, I want it to be better for me.

But we touched on this morals thing awhile back.  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a given atheist does not have a set of morals derived from the 'common' set (which I argue are based on religion), but has instead derived a set of morals based purely on logic, science, and the concepts of the betterment of mankind.  So I ask this person running for office how he decides what is right and wrong, and he tells me that if it makes the world a better place, it's good, and if it doesn't, it's bad.  I'm glad he told me that, because he is not going to get my vote.  I don't want that.  It's not that I want the world to be made worse, it is that I don't like his reasoning.  Today he makes a decision that I agree with (but for the reasons which I do not like) and tomorrow, he makes a decision that I don't agree with, but which are in perfect alignment with his stated morals.

For example, and I'm just spitballing here; let's say he decides that religion, being something that often causes war and terrorism, is a bad thing, and that mankind would be made significantly better if it were outlawed.  That might jibe quite well with his morals, but I don't want that.  Better for the world?  Maybe so.  But no, I won't want that happening, whether it is or whether it isn't for the betterment of mankind.  That's just a random example, I'm not suggesting that an atheist politician would want to outlaw religion.

Why do I look to a Christian framework?  Because if the person is indeed like me, then they are going to vote for the things I want voted for, and against the things I want voted against.  And atheist might vote that way, and they might not.  If their basis for deciding what is right and wrong is significantly different than what I want, then I can't vote for them.

I have heard people tell others that we should vote for the best man or woman, the one who is going to make the most positive change in the world, but I think that's bunk.  I vote for the person whom I feel best represents me and what I want.  I don't much care if it's best for the world, the world fling itself out a window for all I care.



> What is your framework on deciding what is right/wrong?



Christian morals, for the most part.  I must be holding my mouth wrong, that this is not coming through.



> Now you're just being silly.



I'm known for it.


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 14, 2011)

billcihak said:


> yeah, there is something to the religous doctrine that each individual is important and precious in their own right, with out regard to the "big picture" of a society.  The atheists have just as bad a track record on bad decisions, based on science.   Religion may not be necessary for a good person but atheism is no gaurantee either.



True. Just look up Trofim Lysenko. 

Faith or no faith has zero bearing on somebody's ability to be a good person/leader. I'd vote for a theist if he was good. I'd also vote for an atheist if they too were good.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Aug 14, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I suppose because of the phenomena of _empathy_. .



This is part of my argument. Empathy as a phenomena exists because you connect with another person. Why do you feel empathetic? I argue that it is because humans share spiritual connection to each other and to nature.


----------

