Moral code isn't specified to religion.

It all has to do with personality, enviroment, laws, culture, and upbringing.

Allthough I do think religion had a starting point for morality.

Something about that dark, dark cell with Bubba keeps me under the speed limit.

At 12/2/07 11:53 PM, Tancrisism wrote: That is entirely incorrect. One hundred percent incorrect. Read my above post and you will see an example of how it is so.

If I were to be an atheist based on my previous description of what an atheist is, the fact that things may or may not be felt the same by other people wouldn't matter. It wouldn't stop you from killing someone, all it would take would be an existential spark to trigger such an event to happen, which isn't under your control, if I was an atheist.

Compassion is the belief that humans or things in general are significant to oneself. In an atheist's mind, the need for said belief would be gratuitous. All that is necessary is instinct and instinct alone. Which is really in the end being self-centered.

Or maybe i'm just going in circles.

At 12/3/07 12:21 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Well, I feel that I have thought about something, and if you don't think than just be a vegetable.

Vegetable, moron, robot. These are insults. Why do you insult them?

No it doesn't end there... I didn't say that... there is lot more but I won't write a philisophical book now. I think you did get my point, didn't you?

I just objected to the order. I think it would have been more accurate to add another "you learn" after "you make an opinion".

Well, Martin Luther King fought for equality... I don't see whats bad in that idea.

Maybe African American's shouldn't be equal to white Americans.

Also lots of philosophes have helped the human grow in is mind.

Is growth good?

Maybe you know Descartes? He had some good points in his philosophy about how to make yourself a good opinion, without being affected by all the bad things that makes someone who lives in a society unable to have his own opinions and ideas.

What makes his points good?

I didn't quite get that last sentence, sorry I have to speak my mind all in english and thats not my first language.

I meant: How can you think without information?

I am actually reading responses, but not replying as to learn more from your own little discussions. :'D

At 12/2/07 11:41 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 12/2/07 11:38 PM, reality-check7 wrote: And yet you still post in them.

To show how stupid I think they are.

Well thanks for the advice.

At 12/3/07 01:18 AM, pt9-9 wrote:

At 12/2/07 11:53 PM, Tancrisism wrote: That is entirely incorrect. One hundred percent incorrect. Read my above post and you will see an example of how it is so.

If I were to be an atheist based on my previous description of what an atheist is, the fact that things may or may not be felt the same by other people wouldn't matter. It wouldn't stop you from killing someone, all it would take would be an existential spark to trigger such an event to happen, which isn't under your control, if I was an atheist.

Compassion is the belief that humans or things in general are significant to oneself. In an atheist's mind, the need for said belief would be gratuitous. All that is necessary is instinct and instinct alone. Which is really in the end being self-centered.

Or maybe i'm just going in circles.

If an atheist being considerate, or whatever, is self-centered, then wouldn't someone who believes in a god, 'hell', and 'heaven', who is simply doing the same simply to gain entrance to heaven not even more selfish?

And on a related subject, do all religious folks simply stick to morals because they want to go to their represenation of heaven? No, it is based on their needs, wants and feelings. Whichs brings it back to the fact that religion does not at all dictate morality.

However, not all morals are the same to everyone. A man once smashed 4 puppies heads on a street curb because "god told him to." Now, either that was his pathetic attempt at mercy from the court, or he was a maniac who thought that he was being a great person, on gods behalf, thus gaining him entrance to 'heaven.' He thought he was upholding great morals.

ReciprocalAnalogy, I like your line of thought. Who knows, really knows what perfect morals are? No one. Evil could be good, for all we know. No one thinks of themself as a villain.

Doing something (just) out of fear of punishment and hope of a reward deosn't make you moral.

At 12/3/07 12:45 AM, Sekhem wrote: For some stupid reason a whole bunch of peopel have this misimpression that all goths are evil peepz that go and sacrifice things and sh*t, ut that's not true at all. just cause your atheist doesnt mean you sacrifice things11 Duh!!! People are dum.

Yeah, i'm an atheist. That means I don;t believe in god. Here are some common misideas that make people think we are evil and stuff, so hear is a list of things we are not:

* We don't sacrifice vigrins unless there is a need.
* We dont believe in anything
* Drink blood (often)
* and some other stuff...
See, atheists believe in nothing but whatever they want to elieve in. We are not evil, we just believe whatever we want to, which is nothing. We all know life is stupid and a waste. We are only evil because someone else says so. Other religions are just as evil as this one, if not worse for some of the things that have been done!! I hate dumb people that are like "oh your an atheist, why dont you go and kill some cows!! Mooo!!" Stupid.
I feel very attached to the idea of atheism , that we are free to do whatever we want. (Not that my parents buy into that) And there is no proof their is a god, so HA!!

I never get crap for being Atheist. NO ONE thinks Atheists sacrifice. You are thinking of Wiccan and gothic stereotypes. I do not think life is stupid and a waste. That is goths. I am not evil. No one says I am.

Please don't stereotype.
And if you do, get them straight.

The basis of morality is being held responsible to someone or something. Every time I hear this argument, religious people automatically assume that, simply because atheists aren't responsible to God for their actions, that they can't possibly feel the need to act right. This is ridiculous. Everybody is held responsible to society. Treating people right is something that is instilled into people by societal constraints. Everybody is accountable to somebody else. There is no echelon of society, no political position, where you don't have to answer to somebody else for your actions. This is even on a basic level. Going further, most people are cognizant enough to realize that people react to being treated different ways and that, as such, the way you treat people comes with a consequence, either good or bad. Treating people well is in everyone's best interests and is the reason why mankind formed society.

Also, the first written set of laws wasn't religious, it was secular. Hammurabi's code of laws predates the 10 commandments.

At 12/3/07 01:45 AM, deathofself wrote: What possible reason is there for someone of a different color to not be considered equal?

What possible reason is there for them to be?

At 12/3/07 01:38 AM, Chippythechipmonk wrote: ReciprocalAnalogy, I like your line of thought. Who knows, really knows what perfect morals are? No one. Evil could be good, for all we know. No one thinks of themself as a villain.

They're either the protagonist or the anti-hero.

What I'm trying to get at above by playing devils advocate isn't necessarily that utter ambiguity is the way to go, but that regardless of whether it's really right to do something (or really wrong) we use it to validate ourselves. Case in point, the kid I was talking to kept referring to those unlike him in somewhat derogatory terms.

At 12/3/07 01:48 AM, Chippythechipmonk wrote:

At 12/3/07 01:45 AM, deathofself wrote: What possible reason is there for someone of a different color to not be considered equal?

What possible reason is there for them to be?

Because it makes society work.

No matter where you go, all societies have morality.

Morality, is by definition, are the rules of conduct of your people. Christians have their morals... but they are not "the morals." And they are not the only ones to exist, and they don't have the monopoly on them either.

Where do Atheists get them?
From living with people and doing what they do...

At 12/3/07 01:45 AM, Gunter45 wrote: Also, the first written set of laws wasn't religious, it was secular. Hammurabi's code of laws predates the 10 commandments.

At the very top of the basalt relief there's an image of Hammurabi showing respect to a Babylonian god, and the law code is prefaced by Hammurabi saying he was divinely chosen to deliver the law to the land.

To call something with that kind of background 'secular' is a bit of a stretch.

At 12/2/07 10:53 PM, McJesus wrote:

If you start a religion war.. well I'll start crying. Yeah.

For people who believe there is no higher power, no great authority, no God, etc, etc, why do you have morals? In fact, how did morality come about?

If you believe you just 'happened', then why the hell can't you do what you want, instead of following 'morals' set out by man?

I'm continuously confused about this, someone explain.

anarchism and atheism are 2 different things

besides being atheist doesnt mean you cant be morally correct, just means you dont follow the belieifs of the church. besides, whos to say god doesnt exist, but jesus did, could have been like a jewish buddha. therefore he wouldnt have had a god.

there doesnt need to be a higherpower to love your fellow man.

At 12/3/07 03:20 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote: At the very top of the basalt relief there's an image of Hammurabi showing respect to a Babylonian god, and the law code is prefaced by Hammurabi saying he was divinely chosen to deliver the law to the land.

To call something with that kind of background 'secular' is a bit of a stretch.

The reason why I consider it secular is because the set of laws was devised by man and wasn't backed up by anything supernatural, the enforcement was purely societal. This is different than religious law because they claim that God handed down the laws and enforced them. Sure, they'd kill you for breaking the law, but the real enforcement was pissing off God for the afterlife. Saying that you have divine authority to enforce the law doesn't make the law religious, look at Bush.

At 12/3/07 01:23 AM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote:

At 12/3/07 12:21 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Well, I feel that I have thought about something, and if you don't think than just be a vegetable.

Vegetable, moron, robot. These are insults. Why do you insult them?

robot, vegetable? not really, just what they are.
The real problem is that the world is leaded by people who can't think by themselves due to the fact that they are a bunch of people like that. The worst is that when a person just doesn't think about what he's doing, he tend to judge people a lot more, can't say why... but people with ideas and real opinions often get insulted or mistreated by those who follow the norm... and that is probably why I tend to be a little impatient with that kind of "robotic" persons.

No it doesn't end there... I didn't say that... there is lot more but I won't write a philisophical book now. I think you did get my point, didn't you?

I just objected to the order. I think it would have been more accurate to add another "you learn" after "you make an opinion".

oh, then add another "you learn" after it, that was the idea anyway.

Well, Martin Luther King fought for equality... I don't see whats bad in that idea.

Maybe African American's shouldn't be equal to white Americans.

then why did you cared when I said some people are vegetables if your gonna doubt about equality for all? I know what your trying to do... I know you don't really believe those things you say... you talk exactly like Socrate used to do :P

Also lots of philosophes have helped the human grow in is mind.

Is growth good?

if it helps making a better world for everyone I doubt anybody could bring up any good points againt it.

Maybe you know Descartes? He had some good points in his philosophy about how to make yourself a good opinion, without being affected by all the bad things that makes someone who lives in a society unable to have his own opinions and ideas.

What makes his points good?

The fact that the points show you one of the many ways to make yourself a good opinion, which is great. I doubt that learning more, can make your dumber... well maybe it can if you just pretend to be brillant cause you know more than any other, but that just like everything in life right?

I didn't quite get that last sentence, sorry I have to speak my mind all in english and thats not my first language.

I meant: How can you think without information?

You have a brain, maded just for that. The fact is that with the individualist society we have built during the last generations, humans have started to get different from each other, even in little city, town, or country. Lots of people have started to make decision for themselves without thinking about all the community. What happenned next, is that due to the fact that these persons were making decision for themselves and by themselves... they thought that all their ideas and opinions were entirely built up in their own brain... which wasn't exactly true, cause when you live in a society, like it or not, your acting like those around you.
The fact is that when you know it, then you can understand the world around you, make yourself some opinions and understand that sometimes you just have to do like all the others... but the difference between doing everything like everybody without thinking about it and knowing why your doing something like everybody else, is very important.

At 12/2/07 10:53 PM, McJesus wrote:

:In fact, how did morality come about?

...

I strongly believe in the principle that I do not do stuff too people I don't want too happen with myself.

whatever feels right and whatever the law will let you do.

thats why they don't get any fun time childrens cartoons that look like they were made by a russian animation company in thailand (for some reason)

At 12/3/07 02:32 AM, fli wrote: Where do Atheists get them?
From living with people and doing what they do...

But.. where do those people get their 'moral/ethical' standards from?

As an Atheist, I think my morality was influenced by religion to an extent, but with the possibility of SOME biological morality, and I"m a secular one at that(No Buddhism or anything). I'm one of the few that doesn't bash religion.

At 12/3/07 03:48 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: robot, vegetable? not really, just what they are.

Ok then...

The real problem is that the world is leaded by people who can't think by themselves due to the fact that they are a bunch of people like that.

But why is that a problem?

The worst is that when a person just doesn't think about what he's doing, he tend to judge people a lot more, can't say why

Oh don't be silly. People who think judge just as much as people who don't. The thinkers just shroud their judgments behind logic and nicety.

but people with ideas and real opinions often get insulted or mistreated by those who follow the norm... and that is probably why I tend to be a little impatient with that kind of "robotic" persons.

People! We have a source of animosity! *fanfare*

then why did you cared when I said some people are vegetables if your gonna doubt about equality for all?

Equality was not my interest in either case.

I know what your trying to do... I know you don't really believe those things you say... you talk exactly like Socrate used to do :P

You're right. My moral code disagrees with some of the things I've said. It's not my morality that's under scrutiny here, it's the origin of it.

if it helps making a better world for everyone I doubt anybody could bring up any good points againt it.

Well what's a better world?

The fact that the points show you one of the many ways to make yourself a good opinion, which is great. I doubt that learning more, can make your dumber

Are you implying that learning is good (even great)?

I meant: How can you think without information?

You have a brain, maded just for that.

The brain thinks with the aid of information. Without information, there's nothing to think about. Therefore no idea is entirely your own or purely independant from your environment.

but the difference between doing everything like everybody without thinking about it and knowing why your doing something like everybody else, is very important.

I'll drink to that.

laws and inner peace

I don't believe in God at all, but I do believe in being a good person. I think it's an important lesson in life. Besides we are taught by our parents to be good people that is why we continue to do it. It's what we know to do.

So being in general a good person for no benefit to the self is somehow detrimental? So I guess Christians aren't really good people, and the ones who do follow morals only do it because they are afraid of Hell

At 12/2/07 10:53 PM, McJesus wrote:

If you start a religion war.. well I'll start crying. Yeah.

For people who believe there is no higher power, no great authority, no God, etc, etc, why do you have morals? In fact, how did morality come about?

If you believe you just 'happened', then why the hell can't you do what you want, instead of following 'morals' set out by man?

I'm continuously confused about this, someone explain.

its simple -

everybody alive today is part of an unbroken chain of survivors going back thousand and thousands of years. "morality" if you will, is basically a little voice in our head telling us to do the right thing. if our ancestors we all self absorbed, self destructive assholes, we wouldnt be alive today. THERE YA GO.

the bible isn't giving you that, natural selection is.

At 12/3/07 10:21 PM, Xtesh wrote:

At 12/3/07 10:15 PM, Lagatag wrote: So being in general a good person for no benefit to the self is somehow detrimental?

No. Not at all.

Not according to the TC apparantly from my impressions

So I guess Christians aren't really good people, and the ones who do follow morals only do it because they are afraid of Hell

Christians are supposed to good things for the sake of doing them, not in fear of going to Hell.

For instance, I don't have to think about God every ten seconds to do the right thing, and it doesn't make me any less of a Christian. The people who do it in fear of going to Hell are either nervous people by nature, or are somehow scared that they aren't good enough.

Yes I know this, after all ~90% of America is Christian, plus I went to church and sunday school when I was younger. But still, if an Atheist by nature shouldn't follow a moral code, then by nature shouldn't a Christian only follow the moral code for the reward of getting into Heaven?

At 12/2/07 10:53 PM, McJesus wrote: For people who believe there is no higher power, no great authority, no God, etc, etc, why do you
have morals? In fact, how did morality come about?

morality was just sory of built in.

If you believe you just 'happened', then why the hell can't you do what you want, instead of
following 'morals' set out by man?

i don't follow anything set out by man, i just only do things that i don't think are "wrong."

the atheists are the same as the religionists in that they claim that they know something

this is a very foolish belief