h a l f b a k e r yJust add oughta.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Atheists wouldn't HAVE to go there, but they could become citizens there if they wanted.
[link]
|
| |
Why do we have to have our own country? Can't we just have yours and you find somewhere else to live? <joke> |
|
| |
You have to take a vow to be an atheist? |
|
| |
I've no idea. Don't ask me, I'm an agnostic. |
|
| |
You know without people believing in god we wouldnt have all those cool demon and devil movies .. so something good has come out of them believing |
|
| |
Why don't we choose Israel? We could kick the people who currently live there out and then use lots of foreign aid (thank-you USA) to build a good army and occupy some more land when they and their friends try fighting back. After that we could just shoot them when they get too uppity. Sounds great to me... |
|
| |
I used to have this great T-shirt: |
|
| |
The meek shall inherit the earth.
(The rest of us will escape to the stars.) |
|
| |
Thank God I'm an atheist. |
|
| |
Russia, as well as most former U.S.S.R. countries had religion during the entire 'Cold War'.....mostly after Stalin's fortunate ' crossing over'. They never figured out how to have a completely atheist country. The proper way, anyhow. As long as the Orthodox Church Elder's kept their priest's 'reigned in' you could worship whatever in many area's. Now China was close to getting it downpat... but now they've seen the money since Britain gave Hong Kong back. I read degroof's thought, and I think he's got it..reason I just joined. |
|
| |
How do athiests get their morals, from the specific society they are a part of? For instance, if an athiest lives in a cannabilistic society, then to eat other people is a socially moral thing to do. But if the atheist moved to a non-cannabilistic place would he/she be more than happy to change to fit the social environment? |
|
| |
Just curious because I don't have any atheist friends to ask these questions to. |
|
| |
Atheists don't categorize easily, and I'm only a semireformed agnostic anyway, but back when I was young and militantly irreligious, I based my morals upon
John Rawls' theory of justice: a just policy is one which you would accept without knowing which side of it you'd be on. Thus, racial slavery is unjust, because few people would support slavery if their race might be the one to be enslaved. |
|
| |
(I still believe in Rawls' theory of justice, but now, after realizing how little the Bible justifies what I was told it meant, I go to Quaker Meetings on Sundays as well.) |
|
| |
ksligh: Atheists have to pick their own morals, so yes an atheistic cannibal is quite possible. It's not so different from being religious because you come from a religious community... Personally, "Do as you would be done to" seems like a good start (check an article on Kant if you're interested). |
|
| |
It's not easy, ksligh. If only the philosophy of ethics hadn't reached absolute timeless perfection in the meandering religious, historical and messianic writings of a smallish group of semi-nomadic Semites and their descendants between 1000 B.C.E. and 100 C.E. (and somehow attained, impossibly, an even greater level of infallibility through garbled transmission to modern English speakers), it would be ever so much easier for us to at least justify looking elsewhere. As it is, we just muddle along. |
|
| |
<insert Hypothetical Sarcasm Detector Overload Sound
here> |
|
| |
You don't get to pick your own morals. It is ingrained. Like, I know that murder is wrong...but I did not need Jesus Christ or any other god to tell me that. I was raised without religion in my life, and I just always knew that murder was/is wrong. I have lived without a structured moral code all my life, and yet I just "know" that such things as murder are wrong, and am incapable of committing such.
You live by the rules that make sense to you at the time and hope for the best. (this discounts whack serial killers of course!) :) |
|
| |
That's just it though, winter... You just "know" that murder is wrong. But what about the whack serial killer who "knows" no such thing, and doesn't see anything wrong with a few murders? Who are you (or who is anyone) to tell him that he can't do that, if it's left up to just "knowing" what is right? Then it's just one person's morality against another's, and since we're all on the same level, you have no right to impose your personally-arrived-at "rules" on someone else... even a murderer. The only morals that can justly be applied to everyone are those given by something or someone above the system. You are, in fact, advocating picking your own morals by limiting them to coming from inside you. |
|
| |
The only rules that can justly apply to everyone are rules that everyone agrees upon. Failing unanimity, many groups settle for a simple majority. Following the rules set forth by a single person works sometimes, but often leads to anger and rebellion. Unlike winter, I don't think my knowledge of right and wrong are ingrained, except perhaps to a slight degree. For instance, if someone is hurt that makes me feel bad, so I try to avoid that. I'm not sure if that's instinct, or not. |
|
| |
Anyway, what it comes down to is not needing a higher power. Humans are capable of settling to some semblance of order without godliness. In some cases, this order allows for actions that other cultures and systems of law would not condone. It makes me think that there is no right and wrong, just what works for society and what doesn't. There are lots of combinations of allowable actions, some more flexible or more functional than others. The followers of any one of these could claim that their laws come to them from an unseen being on high. Who are we to argue? |
|
| |
Centauri: You're absolutely right that humans can set up order without higher authority. My only point is that you can't legitimately call this authority "right" or "fair" or "just" because it is only based on the will of the majority. In fact, you seem to realize this when you say that it makes you "think there is no right or wrong, just what works for society and what doesn't." That's all well and good, but let's not have anyone confusing "majority rules" with "this is right" or "this is wrong." In the case [winter] brings up, murder is not wrong. It simply doesn't benefit society. But then, that's just in the majority's opinion... |
|
| |
I won't try to reproduce it (I'd just mangle it), but I really recommend the first section of "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. It's a discussion on the origin and purpose of morals in various societies. Nothing pushy, or even pertaining to Christianity in the first part. Just an interesting few chapters on this subject. |
|
| |
PotatoStew, perhaps what winter meant was that Reason guides her to "know" right from wrong, and that this power rests within him/herself. As humans, I maintain that this faculty we use to deliberate, is indeed, ingrained in ourselves…but must also be cultivated. |
|
| |
I can see it now: “Okay jackass, so where does this faculty come from?” |
|
| |
I hold that this ingrained power comes from a higher source. For, I find it easier, simpler and more reasonable to believe that I was given a small sliver of this gift of reason from a source which has it in its fullness, than to believe I just happened to get it by accident and that the conclusions derived from it’s use are completely relative. |
|
| |
Consequently, I hold that centauri’s observation about what “works for society” is based on an implicit agreement between parties that, with discussion, certain implicit truths about the equitable/just will be made explicit (in the form of laws) and that these are not the result of chance. For people present arguments in favor of what they believe to be true, otherwise, if everything is merely opinion and relative…on what do you base your claim or better yet, why even bother? |
|
| |
NOTE: I think it’s important to note that “morals”, “customs” and “justice” are not interchangeable even though they often overlap and depend on each other. Indeed, most serial killers are amazingly meticulous and logical concerning the execution of their activities (and, unfortunately, their victims), but are widely considered morally bankrupt…nevertheless, the fact that not all people cultivate acceptable morals (e.g. serial killers), or choose to suspend them for a time (e.g. drunk drivers) does not excuse them from the behavior that results. |
|
| |
//certain implicit truths about the equitable/just will be made explicit (in the form of laws) and that these are not the result of chance.// |
|
| |
Here we see the word "truth" again, by which I assume you mean that certain laws or ways of behaving are absolutely wrong, and others are absolutely right. This does not seem to play out in reality. Sometimes a thing can be wrong from one perspective and right from another. |
|
| |
Centauri, I appreciate your patience and apologize for my poor attempt. No, by no means was I saying the certain laws or ways of behaving are absolutely wrong, and others are right. |
|
| |
What I was attempting to do is make a distinction between logic and morals, and simply point out that people utilize logic to persuade others to accept their opinion regarding the moral, or correct way, to act because they believe them to be true for all, not one person. |
|
| |
For the most part, laws are agreed upon by reasoned arguments which people believe are based in truth. The problem with this playing “out in reality” is that application of laws (universals: "One must never...") to a particular circumstance (particulars: the recipient of a ticket) requires interpretation, and therefore judges & juries since all circumstances differ. Nevertheless, one argues (i.e. presents his/her perspective) in the hopes of convincing others of a particular truth (e.g. "I did not commit this crime."//"This isn't a crime."//etc.) |
|
| |
The fact that there will always be things that are wrong from one perspective and right from another, does not mean that there are no absolute truths or that all customs are completely relative...it simply requires discussion to differentiate between the two. |
|
| |
My use of the word "thing" was inappropriate. I should have said "sometimes a law or a way of behaving can be wrong from one perspective and right from another." I do believe in absolute truths. The laws of physics (whatever they REALLY are), for instance, are absolutely true (ooh, I'm asking for it...). |
|
| |
Social laws are troublesome beasts and can never be "true" in the sense that they work in every situation. There can always be mitigating circumstances that fall to a matter of opinion, which is why there are attempts to reason one group of decision makers over to one side or the other. Then the law might change to handle this new situation, but there will always be another situation later. |
|
| |
I find it interesting that some would consider that morality comes out of a book or teachings on the subject. Being an athiest does not mean lacking morality. As a lifetime athiest I have never considered myself immoral (well, maybe a few choice times)and have also strived to be considerate of others feelings and positions. In almost every religion in the world, the Christian golden rule of 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is written in some form. For athiests too, the moral concept of treating others as you yourself would choose to be treated make good sense. The biological imparative of self-preservation often prevents us from trying to hurt others for fear that there might be retribution. Couple that with the reality that most people gain absolutly no pleasure out of hurting others, and you have a fairly solid biological case for morality that has nothing to do with religion. Godless doesn't mean heartless. |
|
| |
It seems to me that atheists don't need a homeland. They can just be right here, right now. |
|
| |
Regarding the morality thing: we learn our morality by
that which is around us, ie, parents, religion, state law,
etc, etc! It all rubs off and we "choose" what to follow.
"Personal morality" exists for everyone, even if they
attribute it to one source or another (ie, God's law). As
an Atheist, I like to think my morality is the result of a
more "free and informed" choice, and less of a biased
dictation (what religious people have been pushed into). |
|
| |
Saffron - Religious people also exercise a form of "free and informed choice" in that many many people who adhere to a particular religion will obey some of its rules, but regard others as somewhat anachronistic - e.g. Christians following the teachings of the New Testament but regarding the Old Testament as a little suspect (or even picking and choosing amongst the morals set out in individual books of the Old Testament), Jewish people selecting their level of "frum" (apologies if I've spelt that wrong), Jains deciding whether or not to eat plants. |
|
| |
And the recent destruction of Buddhist statuary by the Taleban is another example - Afghanistan has been a largely Islamic country for a good while now, but it's only now that the Taleban with their more hard-line reading of the Quran have decided to get rid of the statues as being idolatrous. |
|
| |
Hammurabi's code is alive and well in most countries on this planet. Whilst some of the punishments are a little more civilised today the code still serves the same purpose. It stands as the first written codification of the 'morals' and 'laws' laid down for Western society. |
|
| |
If you are looking for proof that other belief systems than Christianity set out what is right and wrong look no farther than Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism, Islam etc. |
|
| |
Exercising your knee-jerk reactions to any questioning of your narrow beliefs by the confusing barrage of information the world throws at you is not necessarily a good thing. You have to think for yourself from time to time. Leaving the hard questions to a "god" of any description merely justifies others' perception that you deserve to be called 'sheep' as you follow blindly and without question something which may be wrong. Just because you believe you are right (myself included) doesn't have to make everyone else wrong. |
|
| |
Too much of humanity's time is taken up justifying why "I'm" right and "you're" wrong. |
|
| |
We all live on this Earth. Get over it; go and contemplate your navel peacefully and leave the rest of us to our own devices. |
|
| |
As an agnostic dyslexic I just don't know if there's a Dog or not. |
|
| |
The atheists dream: To pretend that what they believe matters. |
|
| |
Seriously, though, if you believe that you're just going to "end" when you die, then why do you do ANYTHING? |
|
| |
Why do I do things? As Sir Edmund Hillary might have said: because I'm here. |
|
| |
By the same token, since you can't take worldly goods into the Christian Heaven, why does any Christian bother accumulating them? |
|
| |
I'd imagine that most folks accumulate worldly goods as (a) equipment, (b) status symbols, and (c) swallowed bait that hides the hook of social control (the masses are easier to keep in line if you can convince them that some piece of junk is worth giving up most of your waking hours to generate somebody else's cashflow). Everybody's vulnerable to that, regardless of religious persuasion. And no, I wouldn't want to gather all the atheists in any one place for several reasons: |
|
| |
(1) The country might be elsewhere, and many atheists who are interesting company might emigrate. |
|
| |
(2) They're needed everywhere as a counterbalance to other, less rational, less tolerant forms of belief (which need to be told "a plague on all your houses!" now and then). |
|
| |
(3) The temptation to nuke a refuge-for-unbelievers would prove too much for at least one believer. And that's all it would take. Result: a whole mess of martyrs, which would tend to homogenize atheism as a religion with a jihad agenda. And don't we have a gracious plenty of those already? |
|
| |
why is there this ongoing obsession with society to fit people into groups and catogories? if some individuals were allowed to make the decisions men would be seperated from women, and furthermore, (wo)men of each religion would be segregated also. from here, (wo)men from different branches of each faith would be kept apart, and also those of different skin/hair/eye/etc colour. eventually this system would prove only one thing: we are all individual. if you worked long enough you could have a catogory for each person on earth, into which nobody else would fit.
sounds pretty pointless doesn't it?
That is how worthwhile an athiest homeland would be. why segregate people on terms of what they do or do not believe?
Another reason the idea seems pointless the the main reason many religions claim a homeland. the idea behind the original homelands was that the location was of significance to the beliefs of the group, for example the birthplace of the man Christians call Jesus Christ.
now where exactly would an athiest homeland be?
in conclusion i can only state that the idea of a homeland causes conflict, for example the ongoing violence in the MiddleEast, and misunderstandings, as people are unable to learn about other religions, and consequently make assumptions.
i am an athiest, and as often as i am irratated by the christian society around me, which persistantly expects me to conform, i also enjoy the friendship of some Christian friends.
given the choice i am happy in the multi-racial society Britain offers me. |
|
| |
Sheesh. Thanks for the speech, Speechy. |
|
| |
The atheist have a homeland, it is called the US supreme court. They are the idiots who think Gays should be allowed to be married, believe that we shouldnt say God in public, believe that Under God shouldn't be said in the pledge of allegance, and believe many other outlandish things. I believe the US court system has become the homeland for atheist. Heck some judges even believe in euphanasia and partial birth abortion!
It is as much of an isnault to me to not be able to speak of God in school as it is for an atheist to hear stuff about God at school. |
|
| |
Euphanasia: the act of killing a euphemism? |
|
| |
<The atheist have a homeland, it is called the US supreme court.>
No, the SCOTUS is not a country. |
|
| |
<They are the idiots who think Gays should be allowed to be married, believe that we shouldnt say God in public, believe that Under God shouldn't be said in the pledge of allegance> |
|
| |
You are misinformed. SCOTUS has not done ANY of those things. |
|
| |
<Heck some judges even believe in euphanasia and partial birth abortion! It is as much of an isnault to me to not be able to speak of God in school as it is for an atheist to hear stuff about God at school.> |
|
| |
You must be some sort of genius, because I can't tell what the hell you're talking about. |
|
| |
Euphanasia: the act of killing a *euphonium*, obviously. |
|
| |
While having a country for the atheists, lets have one for the Muslims, the Sikhs, the Hindus, the Buddhists and ahh, why not - lets have one for each type of Christianity too. Then we can keep everyone totally separate and if ever should they meet, prepare the bomb shelters. I’m sorry Mrthingy but I’m going to have to take away that tiny bit of a croissant you have left. |
|
| |