Morality

[Cin]

Doesn't sound callus at all semira, everyone feels  the same way, too much stuff happening in the world.

I believe in karma from personal experience, it has affected me too, I got what I had coming..

[Eevee]

I actually do have an objection to karma beyond having no evidence to back up the belief. Karma states that if something bad happens to someone, they had it coming and they deserve it. It has actually been used as justification in that sense many times as well. I think that's kind of terrible and I wouldn't abide by it even if it were true.

[Cin]

Only proof I can find is my experience and experience of several others. Would that at least count as evidence? If I don't seem to be getting what proof or evidence is, can someone explain it briefly?

[Eevee]

Only proof I can find is my experience and experience of several others. Would that at least count as evidence? If I don't seem to be getting what proof or evidence is, can someone explain it briefly?

If it's evidence enough for you, then that is up for you to decide and nobody else can tell you otherwise. Nobody else can see things through your eyes. The problem is that there is an objective world. Either something is true or it isn't. If you want to convince others of what that reality is, you do have to find a way to show them that evidence. If you don't care to do that and only your own beliefs matter to you, then there's no reason to have that discussion.

At least that's how I see it. I don't care to go around telling others what is or is not real, but I do care that what I believe is true is in fact true. If you think otherwise, then I don't mind too much, but I would definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts just in case I am wrong. I am absolutely not right about everything and I like learning. My previous post was just my way of communicating my thoughts on karma and why I personally don't like it.

[Cin]

I wish I could prove it by sharing my evidence, but it seems I only have personal experiences that I can only share with people.

[KathyLauren]

I guess I am late to the party here, but I think about the basis for moartilty quite a bit.  I do not consider myself an atheist per se, but I am a Buddhist, and Buddhism is a non-theistic religion.

The western religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) are unique in considering morality to be based on obedience.  That is one reason I am not a believer.  I revolted when I heard the story of Abraham and how his claim to greatness was because he was all set to obey God's order to kill his son.  I couldn't accept that as moral.  I think there is nothing inherently moral about obedience.

But I understand that, for people who have that belief, it must be mystifying to encouter people whose morality is not based on obedience.

In Buddhism, morality is based on compassion.  An action is moral if it reduces suffering; an action is immoral if it increases suffering.  (And, I personally would add, an act is evil if it is intended to cause suffering.)  That makes it situational: you have to consider the consequences of this particular act in this particular circumstance.  You cannot just make lists of "thou shalt nots" that apply in all circumstances.  Though Buddhism has its precepts (it is generally good to not kill), they cannot be absolute.

But, even though it is situational, morality is not a free-for-all.  You can't just make it up as you go along.  There is a standard: the reduction of suffering.  It requires intelligence and discernment to apply it.  In fact, the act of considering the consequences of one's actions is morailty in action.

[itsApril]

The western religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) are unique in considering morality to be based on obedience.  That is one reason I am not a believer.  I revolted when I heard the story of Abraham and how his claim to greatness was because he was all set to obey God's order to kill his son.  I couldn't accept that as moral.  I think there is nothing inherently moral about obedience.

I hear ya about the Abraham and Isaac story!  I think Bob Dylan said it all in "Highway 61 Revisited":

Oh, God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe say, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No, " Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want, Abe, but
Next time you see me comin', you better run"

Well, Abe said, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God said, "Out on Highway 61"

[Soli]

I think there is nothing inherently moral about obedience.

...But, even though it is situational, morality is not a free-for-all.  You can't just make it up as you go along.  There is a standard: the reduction of suffering.  It requires intelligence and discernment to apply it.  In fact, the act of considering the consequences of one's actions is morailty in action.

I fully agree with you and I guess then with Bhuddism, but I never turned to Buddhism for it seemed like still too many rules for me.

truth and reality or not that obvious, everything has to be questioned always, and yes in its context

I posted on this thread before then removed it. I don't know why I'm doing this right now   

[Cin]

I guess I am late to the party here, but I think about the basis for moartilty quite a bit.  I do not consider myself an atheist per se, but I am a Buddhist, and Buddhism is a non-theistic religion.

The western religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) are unique in considering morality to be based on obedience.  That is one reason I am not a believer.  I revolted when I heard the story of Abraham and how his claim to greatness was because he was all set to obey God's order to kill his son.  I couldn't accept that as moral.  I think there is nothing inherently moral about obedience.

But I understand that, for people who have that belief, it must be mystifying to encouter people whose morality is not based on obedience.

In Buddhism, morality is based on compassion.  An action is moral if it reduces suffering; an action is immoral if it increases suffering.  (And, I personally would add, an act is evil if it is intended to cause suffering.)  That makes it situational: you have to consider the consequences of this particular act in this particular circumstance.  You cannot just make lists of "thou shalt nots" that apply in all circumstances.  Though Buddhism has its precepts (it is generally good to not kill), they cannot be absolute.

But, even though it is situational, morality is not a free-for-all.  You can't just make it up as you go along.  There is a standard: the reduction of suffering.  It requires intelligence and discernment to apply it.  In fact, the act of considering the consequences of one's actions is morailty in action.

It is mystifying to me, cause there doesn't seem to be anyone judging from above, and good and evil definitions seem unclear to me in Buddhism, I don't know if some sins are more severe than others.

Thanks for adding to this thread, Buddhism is fairly new to me, and I don't know if there are other non theistic religions out there.

[Cin]

I don't actually follow any religion strictly, mostly into God, I read some questionable things in holy books that seem kinda cruel or unfair.

I just sort of follow the Christian model for sinning and afterlife, not 100% either.

I've always thought that if fear of punishment after death shouldn't really matter in this life, and people can be good people without fearing afterlife, but I wonder of its a bad thing if there are people out there who live by the rules only because they fear judgement.

[Eevee]

It is mystifying to me, cause there doesn't seem to be anyone judging from above, and good and evil definitions seem unclear to me in Buddhism, I don't know if some sins are more severe than others.

Thanks for adding to this thread, Buddhism is fairly new to me, and I don't know if there are other non theistic religions out there.

I may have one other suggestion. It's not really a religion, since it tries to be anything but that, but it does have a sense of morality to it. Take a look at the secular humanism movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

[Cin]

I may have one other suggestion. It's not really a religion, since it tries to be anything but that, but it does have a sense of morality to it. Take a look at the secular humanism movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Thanks, that's an interesting read. I was shocked to hear it has so many followers, yet this is the first time I'm hearing about this.

This is a strange question, but how do you people find out about these things, it's amazing. I don't really learn about stuff like this unless it's in the news 

[Eevee]

Thanks, that's an interesting read. I was shocked to hear it has so many followers, yet this is the first time I'm hearing about this.

This is a strange question, but how do you people find out about these things, it's amazing. I don't really learn about stuff like this unless it's in the news

I can't speak for anyone else, but I started learning more when I started questioning my beliefs. The more you go out to seek answers to those questions, the more you learn about the world around you. The biggest mistake I see most people make is accepting the first answer they are given without really looking into it. Mimic children and keep asking "why" to find out more.

[Colleen M]

The western religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) are unique in considering morality to be based on obedience.  That is one reason I am not a believer.  I revolted when I heard the story of Abraham and how his claim to greatness was because he was all set to obey God's order to kill his son.  I couldn't accept that as moral.  I think there is nothing inherently moral about obedience.

This is not an isolated incident in those sects, which really do simply replace morality with obedience.  I've always believed their bible makes more (admittedly still not much) sense once you realize that Satan is an antihero and Jehovah is the villain.  There are those who have done the math, and it seems Satan killed about 10 people--mostly involving Job--while Jehovah killed 2.5 million, give or take. 

[Cin]

Doesn't the world seem chaotic and random if there's no God?

Do atheists have a problem with God OR religion or the books mainly?

To me books don't make that much sense, at least some parts of it.

[Eevee]

Doesn't the world seem chaotic and random if there's no God?

I actually understand the world more now. Belief usually means plugging God into all the gaps of human knowledge. The problem is that humans have learned so much since religious texts were first written. As our collective knowledge has grown, we've noticed that God doesn't really fit in all the gaps that we've stuck him in. Looking back into those gaps has renewed a sense of awe at the universe that was previously restricted for many people. The more we look, the more we learn. I personally think that is amazing.

Do atheists have a problem with God OR religion or the books mainly?

Not necessarily. Every atheist is different. All that is required is a lack of belief. It's usually because there's just not enough evidence to actually convince us. Now personally, I don't think the books make a lot of sense. I also don't think they describe morality very well in any of the characters, especially God. In fact, morality seems to be replaced with blind obedience to a sociopath.

To me books don't make that much sense, at least some parts of it.

There might be a reason for that. The more you read into them, the less sense it all makes. In fact, actually studying the bible is what turned a lot of ex-Christians into atheists. That's exactly how it happened for me.

[Deborah]

If you try to see the world as it is and not as you would like it to be then it seems chaotic where it is chaotic and orderly where it is orderly.  Whether or not there is a God doesn't change that.

I don't think that most people really believe in God either.  Rather they believe in the idea of God.  An idea they read in a book, or that someone else told them about.  If God is real can he then be limited to any single book?

I think people that are atheist come to that position for a variety of reasons.  For some it is through their reason.  For others it is because of religion.  The second is probably especially true with Christianity with its multitude of contradictory sects each claiming to have received the unique truth revealed to them by God himself.  For still others it is the Bible.  For many, maybe most, the Bible is God's mind so that a thinking person either has to reject reality as it is, reject that there is a God, or come to a new understanding of what the book represents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Colleen M]

Doesn't the world seem chaotic and random if there's no God?

Most gods are arbitrary meddlers at best.  For example, the entire Greek pantheon is basically a giant soap opera which occasionally leaves mortals as collateral damage.  Most derivatives of Aten (especially the Abrahamic tradition) are simply psychopathic jerks.  I'd argue the world makes much more sense when you remove superstition from it and begin to explain why things actually happen rather than relying on primitive animism.  How many peasants have died young from disease throughout history, leaving grieving, bewildered (and starving) families?  Those were written off for centuries as "god's will" or "karma" or whatnot.  Remove the cop-out supernatural "explanation" from the equation, and you can begin to address the actual disease process.  If you go to the hospital today and get a diagnosis of congestive heart failure, the good news is that it's not the sheer random chaos of "being struck down by god" but now it's explicable.  And because it's explicable, it might even be fixable to some extent.  Same thing with lightning strikes, or shipwrecks, or wars, or really anything.  This is not only making things seem less random and arbitrary, over time it makes life absolutely better when you cast off the infamous "goddidit" crutch for every event.   

And if there really are no gods, as certainly seems to be the case, the real question is not what we want to be true, but:  "How does lying to ourselves about it really help?"  Really, how scary the world is with or without gods pales to insignificance next to the truth of whether or not there are some.  Reducing the question to one of whether or not we have the courage to grow up as a species and let go of our imaginary friends is simply irrelevant when pondering whether or not the imaginary friends are real in the first place.  Reality doesn't even have the capacity to care whether or not we like it, and the quicker we figure that out the more we're going to be able to take our own steps to make sure we do like the universe we're in.     

Do atheists have a problem with God OR religion or the books mainly?

You'd need a grand total of three atheists to give you three different answers to this question.  You might get four in that group.  Personally, I do agree with the assertion that gods are a phase a species goes through when it's smart enough to ask questions about the universe but not smart enough to answer them.  Religion, taken as a whole, is unquestionably evil, although polytheistic religions clearly much less so than the monotheistic cults.  The books are a mixed bag.  The Abrahamic books are outright abominations which set the tone for some utterly despicable faiths, while the more contemplative Eastern philosophies manage to generally not be actively evil, at least.   

To me books don't make that much sense, at least some parts of it.

Most of the books are so derivative it's appalling.  The problem is that so many of the books were not only written by committee, but plagiarized by committee.  You get everybody's favorite parts of older stories from differing mythologies, and it is unsurprisingly a mess.  Literary criticism is unkind to the vast majority of religious texts.     

[Tossu-sama]

Doesn't the world seem chaotic and random if there's no God?

I call that random chaos evolution. If you take a closer look at it, there's really nothing random about it. Everything happens for a reason, it just may be hard to see.

Do atheists have a problem with God OR religion or the books mainly?

My main problem is with religion, more specifically organized religion. It's just another way for a small group of people to control the masses and it's almost always based on fear (if you don't believe, you go to hell etc). The books are just an extent of this control, just like a rule book.
Religions have been used as the reason to start wars, treat minorities like s*it and to keep basic rights from other people simply because they are the way they are. Sure, if there were no religions to begin with, I bet the same things would happen due to some different thing. However, in this world that's not the case, it's religion.

I don't think I could even have a problem with some deity I don't even believe exists.

[KathyLauren]

Doesn't the world seem chaotic and random if there's no God?

Chaotic?  Yes.  Random?  Not really: everything happens due to causes and conditions.  It may be hard sometimes to discern what the causes are, but they are always there.

Do atheists have a problem with God OR religion or the books mainly?

I can't speak for (other) atheists.  For myself, I am not able to believe in a creator god in general.  Even if I did, I don't think I could accept the God described in the Bible.

The books are interesting quasi-historical, quasi-mythological texts, but don't seem particularly relevant to me.