You find my lack of faith disturbing?

[Empty Hands]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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'

 

[Empty Hands]

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]

I don't understand this sentence. Sorry

Of that I am sure.

 

[MaxiMe]

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]

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.

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."

-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.

-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.

-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.

-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."

-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]

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

Of that I am sure.

-I hate that you are making defend-

What does that mean?

 

[fangjian]

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.

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]

Hmmm,

I’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.

“Doing the right thing” 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’t care what faith or lack of, they have.

 

[fangjian]

I want the best people running my country, Province and City, I don’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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.