Godless Americans March on Washington

[firegod]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59379-2002Nov2.html
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20021103-51797129.htm

I didn't make it, but it looks interesting.

[Yoda]

I already read about this. I found this particularly interesting:

"Religion and morality are separate issues," says Ed Buckner, executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism, which is participating in the march.
:laugh: That cracks me up. Clearly the guy hasn't bothered to think things through much. Either that or he's using his words very loosely.

[firegod]

I think what he means is that some people seem to think they need religion to have morality and others don't. In my opinion, the average atheist has some pretty damn good morals.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by firegod
I think what he means is that some people seem to think they need religion to have morality and others don't. In my opinion, the average atheist has some pretty damn good morals.
Damn good according to...? Your personal preference?

[firegod]

Yup.

[Yoda]

I see. Well, I like chocolate better than vanilla. :)

Regardless, the guy was using loose language, and frankly, I don't think it was just poor phrasing. I think it's a Freudian slip of sorts; many people like to regard their morality as apart from any belief (or lack thereof) of God. To say that they are "seperate issues" is completely ridiculous. The existence (or non-existence) of God has a dramatic effect on morality.

People claim that they can be "moral" without God, but what they really mean is that they can do what they think they should do. The fact that sometimes it may happen to overlap with morals rooted in God is irrelevant, and it doesn't make it any more valid. In the end, they're saying "we can be what you call 'good' even if we don't believe in your God."

A question: where have most Atheists gotten their morals? If morality is truly subjective, as you seem to believe, then wouldn't it stand to reason that most Atheists only have morals that tend to be overlap with most religious morals because they were raised to revere those sorts of morals, because this is a largely religious country?

[firegod]

I think humans tend to have mostly the same morals because we have similar experiences, teachings and instincts. But I will concede most of what you are saying. I think that the morals of atheists are even more similar to the morals of theists than they might otherwise be because religion is very dominant and most atheists were brought up to be at least a little religious. I think that some of those morals fade away the more people think for themselves, and I certainly don't think any of this speaks to the validity of religion. Sexism used to be very dominant as well.

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Yoda
I see. Well, I like chocolate better than vanilla. :)

Regardless, the guy was using loose language, and frankly, I don't think it was just poor phrasing. I think it's a Freudian slip of sorts; many people like to regard their morality as apart from any belief (or lack thereof) of God. To say that they are "seperate issues" is completely ridiculous. The existence (or non-existence) of God has a dramatic effect on morality.

People claim that they can be "moral" without God, but what they really mean is that they can do what they think they should do. The fact that sometimes it may happen to overlap with morals rooted in God is irrelevant, and it doesn't make it any more valid. In the end, they're saying "we can be what you call 'good' even if we don't believe in your God."

A question: where have most Atheists gotten their morals? If morality is truly subjective, as you seem to believe, then wouldn't it stand to reason that most Atheists only have morals that tend to be overlap with most religious morals because they were raised to revere those sorts of morals, because this is a largely religious country?

You're sooooo full of crap, I can't stand it. How do you know what people really mean? Sheesh, get off your high horse before you get a nose bleed.:rolleyes:

[Naisy]

you know the same could be said for everyone here? :indifferent: you dont have to like the other persons view to understand it.

[Herod]

Quiet down, FireGod. You filthy immoral heathan, you.
:laugh:

[Yoda]

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
You're sooooo full of crap, I can't stand it. How do you know what people really mean? Sheesh, get off your high horse before you get a nose bleed.:rolleyes:
Oh, how silly of me to reach conclusions based on his, uh, WORDS. :rolleyes:

Simple fact: either he was using language VERY loosely, or he was flat-out wrong. Do I think it was just loose language? Based on my many discussions with Atheists, and the context, I would say NO. That is my opinion, as reflected in this statement:

I don't think it was just poor phrasing
Apparently saying that "don't think" something means I'm ridin' a high horse? Allow me to be blunt: you'd be annoyed as hell if I tried to criticize you as being "sooooo full of crap" if you expressed an opinion on someone else's words.

Besides: even if you acknowledge the possibility of poor phrasing, it's pretty flippin' hard to misinterpret such a simple quote! He says they are "seperate" issues; clearly, however, they are irrevocably related...at BEST, we have to assume a gross exaggeration.

The conclusion I reached is a perfectly realistic, reasonable, plausible conclusion backed by a significant amount of personal experience and context. REGARDLESS, though, it was only a springboard to discuss a faulty mindset that is all too often overlooked by some who expess disbelief in God...which was the real point of the post, obviously.

[LordSlaytan]

Yoda, what I meant was that there is no way for you to know how I've achieved my morality. Yet with your previous statement, you assume that you do. I don't believe I need religion to know right from wrong, as you believe I do. Religion is not as old as the human race, but if your statement is true, then there were no morals at all before organized religion came along to hold our hands and show us the way. I know you are a very intelligent and enlightened young man. But in my humble opinion, I think you are way off base with this one aspect, and I feel offended by what appears to be smugness about your knowledge of my way of life. As far as the rest of the things you wrote in your post, I have no problem with. I would have been more explicit with my reply, but I was interupted and couldn't finish it.

[Yoda]

I'm afraid you've misunderstood me: I've never said you cannot have your own morality. Obviously you can...because obviously you do. I don't know how you've come to believe that this is right or that is wrong. It doesn't really matter. I'm not making a judgement of your morals. Perhaps I'd agree with them. That's not the issue, however.

Here's a simple fact, though: if there is NOTHING...no Higher Power of ANY kind...then right and wrong are opinion.

Think about it; how would they be anything else? If it's right, why is it right? If it's wrong, who says so? If it's just you, why does that make it right? And if it's right because everyone says it is, why does THAT make it right? Would wrong be right and right wrong if everyone changed their mind?

I don't assume that I know how you got your morality; I just make the claim (which I can most definitely back up) that if you don't believe in any sort of God, your morality is just YOUR morality, and it holds no weight. It's a logical inevitability.

[LordSlaytan]

I think we know what's right, because we know how we want to be treated. I don't want to be killed, so I must assume you don't either...so that must ne right. I don't want you to steal from me, so I...see what I mean? Even if there is a God, right from wrong is still an opinion. It's an opinion of faith. Personally, I'm an agnostic, not an athiest. Athiests have no humility, and that drives me INSANE!!!! I don't know what's up there, or if there is.

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Naisy
you know the same could be said for everyone here? :indifferent: you dont have to like the other persons view to understand it.

Your opinion doesn't matter to me, Mick! ;)

[Yoda]

But by that logic, it'd be okay to do something if you didn't mind it being done back to you. And obviously that doesn't quite fit; just because so-and-so doesn't mind being punched in the face, it doesn't mean it's "right" for them to punch you or I in the face. We all want and like different things, after all.

There are really four possibilites:

1 - God gave us morality somehow; either through a Moral Stamp on all humans, or simply through His teachings. Personally I think it's the former; God has given us innate morality, to a degree. The latter has, I think, some logistical problems.

2 - We have morality simply because we were raised that way.

3 - We have morality because it's built into our instincts (doesn't hold up well, IMO).

4 - A mix of #2 and #3.

Regardless, though, if morality ain't comin' from God, it ain't comin' at all...and that means that a statement like, say, this:

"Rape, torture, slavery and genocide are great!"

...has as much objective value as ANY other statement.

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Yoda
But by that logic, it'd be okay to do something if you didn't mind it being done back to you. And obviously that doesn't quite fit; just because so-and-so doesn't mind being punched in the face, it doesn't mean it's "right" for them to punch you or I in the face. We all want and like different things, after all.

I think you're being a little nit picky here. The bible condones slavery, so that's ok? As a society we have decided that's wrong, because we wouldn't want to be sold into slavery. Which opinion is on the higher side of morality?

[Yoda]

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
I think you're being a little nit picky here. The bible condones slavery, so that's ok? As a society we have decided that's wrong, because we wouldn't want to be sold into slavery. Which opinion is on the higher side of morality?
I don't believe The Bible does condone slavery.

We haven't decided that slavery is wrong because we wouldn't want it; we've decided that it's wrong because we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." One of those rights is freedom; which conflicts with slavery. It can't just be wrong because we wouldn't want it done to us, because clearly we would see it as wrong whether the other person wanted it done to them or not.

As for the "higher side" of morality; well heck, who determines which side is higher, in your opinion?

[LordSlaytan]

Yeah, you're probably right, I was thinking of the, "Slaves, be obedient to masters" verse from Exodus, but there is probably more to it.

As far as the who decides question...I do, for myself. I don't need you or your book to define it for me. I think that there are probably a lot of people who feel that way.

You may be right though. Who knows? I am not that full of myself to have absolute answers about many things, unless they concern me on a personal issue that only I can figure out for myself.

[firegod]

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
I am not that full of myself to have absolute answers about many things
Neither am I, but I can't possibly have any humility, just because I'm an atheist... :rolleyes: Let me clue you in on something. Being an atheist simply means you have no belief in any deities. It doesn't mean you claim to know that there are no gods. If you don't have a belief in a god, then you are an atheist just like me whether you want to be or not. Don't like that? Tough. :)

[Naisy]

I will admit, the way we are raised is a great factor in our morals, and think about what the constitution is made up primarily of, Christian values, if we were all born into a world of hate and violence and destruction naturally we would tend to have destructive built up into our system. I do not believe morals were ORIGINALLY instinct, but they are now, i think originally God taught people the ways through his prophets and the bible OR we simply followed what everyone else was doing. Everyone has some Christian morals taught to them, whether they follow the religion or not, for example the law says you cant kill the bible says thou shalt not kill, but should there be no law and no expectations of society than how many more people would be killed? i dont even know whether what im writing has a point and im going to stop right here

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by firegod

Neither am I, but I can't possibly have any humility, just because I'm an atheist... :rolleyes: Let me clue you in on something. Being an atheist simply means you have no belief in any deities. It doesn't mean you claim to know that there are no gods. If you don't have a belief in a god, then you are an atheist just like me whether you want to be or not. Don't like that? Tough. :)

Ugh, oh well...I guess it's my turn to offend someone. I think agnostics prove to be more open minded about other possibilities than athiests. To know unequivocally that there is no God is arrogant in my opinion, but maybe it is more like a reversal of faith. But by my own words I have proven my own arrogance. I apoligize. :yup:

[Naisy]

Why bother, religion, creed doesnt effect how open minded you are, YOU DO. if you choose not to accept something than You are choosing to close off your mind, im a witch, it doesnt stop me from accepting god, or believing that other possibilities are out there. So as far as open mindness goes, PERSONAL not RELIGION nor MORAL!! well thats just what i believe.

[firegod]

No prob. But being atheist does not mean you necessarily think you know unequivocally that there is no god. It simply means you don't have a belief that there is one.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by firegod
No prob. But being atheist does not mean you necessarily think you know unequivocally that there is no god. It simply means you don't have a belief that there is one.
Not quite. If that were true, "Agnostic" and "Atheist" would be damn near synonyms. Atheists have made a choice: no God. This is not the same as saying none can exist...or that it's impossible for God to exist...but they've chosen a side, just as Believers have.

Agnostics tend to take the "we can't possibly know one way or another" road. Either that or "I can't decide."

The thing about Agnosticism in the most common sense (the kind that says we cannot know either way) is that it says something about God if He exists; it says that He didn't make sure, for whatever reason, that we had enough information to decide, reasonably. So in that sense, it rules out certain ideas about God, without ruling God out altogether.

As for arrogance: I think saying that you can't know either way can easily be construed as somewhat arrogant. For one, it says that everyone who has decided is basing their decisions on inadequate evidence. For another, it's assuming that they've basically heard everything they need to. After all, there's a difference between "you can't tell" and "I, personally, cannot tell based on what I know right now." Many Agnostics take the first route.

The first route is a statement about the Universe. The second, however...the statement that you (meaning an Agnostic) cannot decide, personally, right now...that's a statement about the speaker, instead.

Anyway, the alternatives to God are such a long-shot (emotionally AND logically) that I think the issue is a moot point anyway. ;D

[firegod]

I'm getting tired, so I'll tackle you tomorrow, Yoda. However, I will say that the "a" means without and the "theist" means someone who believes in a god or gods. An atheist simply does not have a blief in a god. An atheist who claims that there are definately no gods is called a strong atheist.

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Yoda
As for arrogance: I think saying that you can't know either way can easily be construed as somewhat arrogant.

I agree, that's why I mentioned my own arrogance by making that statement. :yup: