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.
