You find my lack of faith disturbing?

[Bill Mattocks]

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:

仁 義 礼 智 信 忠 孝 悌

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.