Morality of Non-Believers

Hang on to your chalks and choaks there mountain man. I am not bitter..just getting worn out on the nonsense religion has imposed on the human race.

I am hopeful that people will come to thier senses and start thinking smarter and acting better towards one another.

I feel similar to your first statement above except recently I've come to understand why someone has faith, regardless of whether its rational or not. I am angry, or frustrated, or bitter, or all of the above because of the detriment religion has been to the advancement of the human race and for the arbitrary rules/traditions/laws/cultural guidelines that I have to follow in order not to go to jail, to be a social outcast, or what have you because of religious scripture and its base in not-observable reality.

I am hopeful that those who do have faith and are part of an organized religion understand why those of us who don't have faith, don't, and why not everyone has to live by the standards imposed by their gods.

Faith and religious belief should be personal. Observable reality should be the basis of policy, law, tradition, and culture. And, Cecilie and Againsheila, so should human psychology.

You should study anthropology, you might have a better appreciation for religion, and it's absolute necessity to having got us to where we are now. Your idea of religionless morality is too utopian to be workable in the past, now, or the foreseeable future.

I'd argue that morality preceded religion. I'd argue that "morality" is just a set of rules humans invented so that they could cooperate and get on with each other. I'd also argue that religion is a powerful social controller and subsumed the original rules.
 
I feel similar to your first statement above except recently I've come to understand why someone has faith, regardless of whether its rational or not. I am angry, or frustrated, or bitter, or all of the above because of the detriment religion has been to the advancement of the human race and for the arbitrary rules/traditions/laws/cultural guidelines that I have to follow in order not to go to jail, to be a social outcast, or what have you because of religious scripture and its base in not-observable reality.

I am hopeful that those who do have faith and are part of an organized religion understand why those of us who don't have faith, don't, and why not everyone has to live by the standards imposed by their gods.

Faith and religious belief should be personal. Observable reality should be the basis of policy, law, tradition, and culture. And, Cecilie and Againsheila, so should human psychology.

You should study anthropology, you might have a better appreciation for religion, and it's absolute necessity to having got us to where we are now. Your idea of religionless morality is too utopian to be workable in the past, now, or the foreseeable future.

I'd argue that morality preceded religion. I'd argue that "morality" is just a set of rules humans invented so that they could cooperate and get on with each other. I'd also argue that religion is a powerful social controller and subsumed the original rules.

Would you have a source for that argument, or is it just your opinion?
 
You should study anthropology, you might have a better appreciation for religion, and it's absolute necessity to having got us to where we are now. Your idea of religionless morality is too utopian to be workable in the past, now, or the foreseeable future.

I'd argue that morality preceded religion. I'd argue that "morality" is just a set of rules humans invented so that they could cooperate and get on with each other. I'd also argue that religion is a powerful social controller and subsumed the original rules.

Would you have a source for that argument, or is it just your opinion?

Here's something:


Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days

and further on in the article

Social living requires empathy, which is especially evident in chimpanzees, as well as ways of bringing internal hostilities to an end. Every species of ape and monkey has its own protocol for reconciliation after fights, Dr. de Waal has found. If two males fail to make up, female chimpanzees will often bring the rivals together, as if sensing that discord makes their community worse off and more vulnerable to attack by neighbors. Or they will head off a fight by taking stones out of the males’ hands.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science

It looks like morality isn't exclusively a human trait. I'm pretty sure primates don't have religion. Thus it looks like morality is independent of religion. But they have something in common, they're both human inventions.
 
I'd argue that morality preceded religion. I'd argue that "morality" is just a set of rules humans invented so that they could cooperate and get on with each other. I'd also argue that religion is a powerful social controller and subsumed the original rules.

Would you have a source for that argument, or is it just your opinion?

Here's something:


Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days

and further on in the article

Social living requires empathy, which is especially evident in chimpanzees, as well as ways of bringing internal hostilities to an end. Every species of ape and monkey has its own protocol for reconciliation after fights, Dr. de Waal has found. If two males fail to make up, female chimpanzees will often bring the rivals together, as if sensing that discord makes their community worse off and more vulnerable to attack by neighbors. Or they will head off a fight by taking stones out of the males’ hands.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science

It looks like morality isn't exclusively a human trait. I'm pretty sure primates don't have religion. Thus it looks like morality is independent of religion. But they have something in common, they're both human inventions.

Hmmm... I like the first one, tho I don't think it really proves your point. The second definitely doesn't.

Monkeys helping each other isn't proof of morality... empathy maybe... or a basic understanding that strife isn't conducive to communal living, but not morality.
 
Just so I know - what is my point? That's not me being cranky or difficult, I just need to know that I've explained my position properly. To me it's clear, but it would be of course. If you have a different view of what my point is then I've not made it clearly enough.

This is what I'm trying to get across.

Morality is what we call the set of rules humans invented to get along with each other. Those rules, which could probably be said to be universal (at least in their basic form, human mores change over time and space but the basics - don't kill one of your own, for example - don't change that much) were adopted by religions which reinforced the pre-existing rules.

That's it I think.
 
Just so I know - what is my point? That's not me being cranky or difficult, I just need to know that I've explained my position properly. To me it's clear, but it would be of course. If you have a different view of what my point is then I've not made it clearly enough.

This is what I'm trying to get across.

Morality is what we call the set of rules humans invented to get along with each other. Those rules, which could probably be said to be universal (at least in their basic form, human mores change over time and space but the basics - don't kill one of your own, for example - don't change that much) were adopted by religions which reinforced the pre-existing rules.

That's it I think.

I'm not going to venture to say what your point was... but using monkeys as an example didn't seem conclusive to me. I have a lot of respect for primates and how similar their behavior can be to our own but the examples you cited didn't seem to prove morality on the part of the chimps. There could be other plausible explanations for the behaviors you posted about. That's all I was saying. I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult, I just don't think you showed morality on their part.

My view on religion and civilization may not be what you'd assume it to be given that I believe in a higher power. I absolutely see that religion is a system of control and has been used that way as long as we've had it. But I see religion and God as distinctly different things. Monkeys behaving in a way that benefits the "tribe" doesn't prove morality on their part, IMO. But also, IMO proving anything with primates will be difficult. I'd be more apt to consider an example of early human behavior, but even then it would be hard not to discount it on account of we don't really know when humans began to be spiritual/religious.
 
....

I'm not going to venture to say what your point was... but using monkeys as an example didn't seem conclusive to me. I have a lot of respect for primates and how similar their behavior can be to our own but the examples you cited didn't seem to prove morality on the part of the chimps. There could be other plausible explanations for the behaviors you posted about. That's all I was saying. I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult, I just don't think you showed morality on their part.

My view on religion and civilization may not be what you'd assume it to be given that I believe in a higher power. I absolutely see that religion is a system of control and has been used that way as long as we've had it. But I see religion and God as distinctly different things. Monkeys behaving in a way that benefits the "tribe" doesn't prove morality on their part, IMO. But also, IMO proving anything with primates will be difficult. I'd be more apt to consider an example of early human behavior, but even then it would be hard not to discount it on account of we don't really know when humans began to be spiritual/religious.

You're right, I didn't show any morality on the part of primates. That's because I don't think they have morality but they do apparently have a sense of cooperation and altruism.

Cooperative behaviour as well as what might be called altruistic behaviour was why I posted the findings described in the article. My point was that if primates can display that behaviour and primates don't have religion (that I know of) then cooperative and altruistic behaviour doesn't require religion.

There's evidence of historical human spirituality available and again it's generalised to be found in time and place. Burial ritual is an indicator. I think the oldest evidence goes back a couple of hundred thousand years. So it's entirely possible that humans developed spirituality fairly early. But I still contend that cooperative behaviours which I say were the precursor for the idea of “morality” preceded religion.
 
So if you're an atheist, it's best to make a ton of money by any means possible so you can live the 'good life' before you die.

Christians say you can't take it with you so both Christians and non-believers may as well try and make a ton of money before they die.

Well, that's the problem.

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:24
 
You should study anthropology, you might have a better appreciation for religion, and it's absolute necessity to having got us to where we are now. Your idea of religionless morality is too utopian to be workable in the past, now, or the foreseeable future.

I was an anthropology major at University of Colorado, Amanda. Anthropology has little to do with religion unless you are studying cultural anthropology. I also took some history classes. I would say that the millenium following the fall of the Roman Empire, aka the Dark Ages, is a perfect example of my point. The Church controlled everything, especially knowledge. Only monks and clergymen could read, and all reading material was controlled by the church. It wasn't until Martin Luther nailed his protest to the church door that people began to educate themselves and teach themselves to read. They established schools and lo and behold: The Renaissance. Do you know about the library Alexander the Great and Aristotle started in Alexandria? At the fall of the Roman Empire the scholars there knew that the world was round. They knew the Earth revolved around the Sun. They also, and I was really surprised to learn this, had a steam engine. The Church suppressed that information. And, look at what they did to Galileo when he rediscovered those facts.

Of course, then there was western exapansion when native tribes (labeled savages) were routinely massacred and even wiped out because of the Great Commission. Religion considered itself just and righteous and when its adherents committed genocide against the natives of the lands being colonized, the men in charge were considered heroes i.e. Columbus, Cortez, Pizarro and the imperialistic expansion of Europe into Africa and Southeast Asia. Religion was the justification (not the only reason) for the killing, the enslavement, and the suppression of the native cultures. The same goes for Australia and North America in the 19th Century.

Religious special interest groups in our own country want to curb stem cell research which could lead to cures for numerous diseases and conditions. Religious groups have funded campaigns to ban same-sex marriages. They want Christian creationism taught in public schools that atheist, agnostic, muslim, hindu, and buddhist children attend. When Bush Jr. proposed sending money to Africa to help with the AIDS epidemic, religious groups lobbied so that only organizations teaching abstinence received aid. Those advocating condoms or other preventive measures received none. This, according to the UN and other humanitarian organizations, has only hindered the prevention of the spread of AIDS and not done much to stem the epidemic.

So, if you can come up with an example of how religion has helped human beings advance as a civilization, then please, share it with me because, for the life of me, I can't think of one example.
 
I'm not going to venture to say what your point was... but using monkeys as an example didn't seem conclusive to me. I have a lot of respect for primates and how similar their behavior can be to our own but the examples you cited didn't seem to prove morality on the part of the chimps. There could be other plausible explanations for the behaviors you posted about. That's all I was saying. I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult, I just don't think you showed morality on their part.

My view on religion and civilization may not be what you'd assume it to be given that I believe in a higher power. I absolutely see that religion is a system of control and has been used that way as long as we've had it. But I see religion and God as distinctly different things. Monkeys behaving in a way that benefits the "tribe" doesn't prove morality on their part, IMO. But also, IMO proving anything with primates will be difficult. I'd be more apt to consider an example of early human behavior, but even then it would be hard not to discount it on account of we don't really know when humans began to be spiritual/religious.

What do you think morality is? I think Diuretic's examples show other animals being what we could term moral. Animals sacrificing themselves to save a life or reduce another's suffering is about as moral as you can get in my opinion.

Like I said, I've studied anthropology, and religion was around long before the Jews and the Old Testament. It was around a lot earlier than when the Bible claims God created the Earth.

I would even venture to say that an evidence of early human behavior that demonstrates morality is the fact that human beings survive today. That cooperation, the altruism, the empathy that allows human beings to live together has greatly increased our ability to survive. Logically, one could say morality is an evolved trait: it allows for an increased chance to survive and reproduce. It also increases the chances of survival for a group because if that group could murder, steal from, and rape eachother I don't think that group would have survived long.
 
I can point to efforts to positively influence civilization, but that doesn't mean they have suceeded. Shakyamuni Buddha attempted to do away with the caste system in India. He did not succeed.

HH the Dalai Lama urges the Tibetans in exile and still living in China, (the are that was once Tibet) to use non-violence.

Dr Martin Luther King, a minister affected civiliazation by his use of non-violent activism for civil rights. He was influenced by another man, Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, who employed the same spiritual ethics and priinciples to change Indian society.

One can also point to humanists who have influenced civilization for the better. Being a 'believer' in God is not necssary to affect positive change, but 'believing in essential goodness' is. And that is my opinion.
 
So if you're an atheist, it's best to make a ton of money by any means possible so you can live the 'good life' before you die.

Well, here you go religious folks: the example of how religious people perceive and generalize godless morality.

Every, and I mean, EVERY non-religious person that I know personally puts little importance on material possessions or money. If you only live once, its more important to have a meaningful existence, not a comfortable one, because you may not go to anywhere when you die.
 
I can point to efforts to positively influence civilization, but that doesn't mean they have suceeded. Shakyamuni Buddha attempted to do away with the caste system in India. He did not succeed.

HH the Dalai Lama urges the Tibetans in exile and still living in China, (the are that was once Tibet) to use non-violence.

Dr Martin Luther King, a minister affected civiliazation by his use of non-violent activism for civil rights. He was influenced by another man, Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, who employed the same spiritual ethics and priinciples to change Indian society.

One can also point to humanists who have influenced civilization for the better. Being a 'believer' in God is not necssary to affect positive change, but 'believing in essential goodness' is. And that is my opinion.

Alright, conceded. I wouldn't call humanism a religion, though.

I would also point out that the Christian funadmentalists believe His Holiness, the Dalai Lama is going to Hell, and that Ghandi is already there. Oh, and Dr. King was assassinated by a Christian.
 
So if you're an atheist, it's best to make a ton of money by any means possible so you can live the 'good life' before you die.

Well, here you go religious folks: the example of how religious people perceive and generalize godless morality.

Every, and I mean, EVERY non-religious person that I know personally puts little importance on material possessions or money. If you only live once, its more important to have a meaningful existence, not a comfortable one, because you may not go to anywhere when you die.

You had me earlier in your arguments but you lost me on this one. Anecdotes and generalities are less convincing, IMO




"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).
 
You had me earlier in your arguments but you lost me on this one. Anecdotes and generalities are less convincing, IMO

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).

I couldn't find any research on atheism and materialism so all I had was anecdotal evidence. It might not count for much, but I still think it counts.
 
....

I'm not going to venture to say what your point was... but using monkeys as an example didn't seem conclusive to me. I have a lot of respect for primates and how similar their behavior can be to our own but the examples you cited didn't seem to prove morality on the part of the chimps. There could be other plausible explanations for the behaviors you posted about. That's all I was saying. I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult, I just don't think you showed morality on their part.

My view on religion and civilization may not be what you'd assume it to be given that I believe in a higher power. I absolutely see that religion is a system of control and has been used that way as long as we've had it. But I see religion and God as distinctly different things. Monkeys behaving in a way that benefits the "tribe" doesn't prove morality on their part, IMO. But also, IMO proving anything with primates will be difficult. I'd be more apt to consider an example of early human behavior, but even then it would be hard not to discount it on account of we don't really know when humans began to be spiritual/religious.

You're right, I didn't show any morality on the part of primates. That's because I don't think they have morality but they do apparently have a sense of cooperation and altruism.

Cooperative behaviour as well as what might be called altruistic behaviour was why I posted the findings described in the article. My point was that if primates can display that behaviour and primates don't have religion (that I know of) then cooperative and altruistic behaviour doesn't require religion.

There's evidence of historical human spirituality available and again it's generalised to be found in time and place. Burial ritual is an indicator. I think the oldest evidence goes back a couple of hundred thousand years. So it's entirely possible that humans developed spirituality fairly early. But I still contend that cooperative behaviours which I say were the precursor for the idea of “morality” preceded religion.

Is the behavior really altruistic tho? Isn't it possible that it is just what's in the best interest of the group? Primates engage in a lot of other behaviors, like hunting or war for example, that benefit the group. Couldn't trying to save a member of the group be about not wanting to lose a provider or baby maker? Also, primate groups are very hierarchical, couldn't it be the threat of retribution from the leader that drives behavior?
 
So if you're an atheist, it's best to make a ton of money by any means possible so you can live the 'good life' before you die.

Well, here you go religious folks: the example of how religious people perceive and generalize godless morality.

Every, and I mean, EVERY non-religious person that I know personally puts little importance on material possessions or money. If you only live once, its more important to have a meaningful existence, not a comfortable one, because you may not go to anywhere when you die.

It was a joke, but you haven't been here long enough to know that. It's cool.
 
You had me earlier in your arguments but you lost me on this one. Anecdotes and generalities are less convincing, IMO

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).

I couldn't find any research on atheism and materialism so all I had was anecdotal evidence. It might not count for much, but I still think it counts.

I think your opinion is fine and stands on it's own. I should have been clearer. What I objected to was your generalization about others. I included the Lincoln quote in my post to back your position.

Lincoln was not a lover of the Christian faith, and yet he greatly contributed to American civilization.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top