Comic Genesis Forums

Today's comic irked me a bit. As an atheist myself, I'm unhappy with the idea that morality is somehow linked to religious beliefs.

So, let's assume you've just constructed something like an Ogre Mk. 4, and you *want* it to be fundamentally psychopathic. "You don't want it thinking about all the souls it's sent to the hereafter." Why not? That never stopped the psychopaths of human history. In fact, if you follow the concept of an afterlife to its logical conclusion, you end up with a familiar saying: "Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!"

I'm a senior associate of the Foresight Institute, which is a major hub of nanotechnology education and policy programs. One of the big questions we've had to look at in nanotechnology is how you can develop this extremely powerful and versatile technology without seeing it turned into weapons of mass destruction -- potentially far worse than H-bombs or anything else yet seen.

One possible solution I thought up several years back was to give the AI systems a conscience, so they could decide for themselves not to follow some orders, and not to cooperate with some plans. So if you ask your robot bush to produce nerve gas (or something worse), it would tell you to get stuffed. But there's also the possibility of convincing the robot to produce something dangerous for you, if it sees that you aren't going to misuse the stuff.

At no time did it ever occur to me that we should give them religion.

"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." -- Arthur C. Clarke

also....

"But it is amazing how childishly gullible humans are. There are, for example, so many different religions - each of them claiming to have the truth, each saying that their truths are clearly superior to the truths of others - how can someone possibly take any of them seriously? I mean, that's insane." -- Arthur C. Clarke

Heh. Nothing in the universe so self-righteous as an atheist...

Well, this huffiness on the part of the diehard atheist crowd misses a tiny point: namely, that the Ayn Rand node was installed by the O'benn-- in the mistaken notion that keeping their AI all nice and materialistically minded would keep it from, shall we say, "getting religion" and going out of their control. Which means the question of the influence of theological beliefs is THEIR issue, isn't it?

And dear heart, razzing people about the multiplicity of religions is not a valid refutation of the central contention of religion-- the existence of a Supreme Being. The fact that twenty people will have forty opinions about one phenomenon does not refute the existence of the phenomenon.

Nor is addressing the fact that they are all absolutely certain of what they believe. The allegedly impartial and objectivist world of science is no better-- it's a a millenia old battlefield strewn with the corpses of scholars who were 100% unshakeably sure of their "scientific facts"-- and who refused to budge their entrenched beliefs, even after the evidence was in, even when it cost lives. (Ask sometime about how long it took to convince, not the common people, but *honored doctors and surgeons* of the germ theory, vaccinations, blood transfusions, sutures to close wounds rather than red hot irons....)
Worse, bad science in the 20th century made possible some of the most incredible evils of the 20th century.... Eugenics and evolutionary theory were the Holy Writ of the Communist and National Socialist regimes, and they quoted them, chapter and verse, even as they hauled "mentally deficient" Christians and political dissidents off to the gulags for 'reeducation' and "genetically inferior" and "less evolved" races off to the ovens. Blacks were believed, by "sober scientists," to be less evolved than whites; the natives of Tasmania were regarded as little better than missing links--- the last native woman of that land was subjected to wretched indignities by so-called scholars, and even though her deathbed plea was to be buried in her homeland, had her body put on display in a museum as if she were no more than an ape.
Atheistic, humanistic regimes, in the course of the 20th century, killed more people-- *their own people*-- in that one century than died in all the wars prior, religious or otherwise. And evolutionary scientists of the world applauded them all the way up the ladder.

You see, atheists may talk about how moral they are. But what they will not acknowledge is that, with no absolutes but the ones they set arbitrarily for themselves, they are moral gelatin-- the size and form of their morality is entirely dependent upon the mould it gells in. They'd rather choke than admit the western world owes its ethical and moral forms to the *Judeo Christian ethic* of its founders. But humans are creatures of habit. Surround them with a society motivated by Judeo Christian ethics, and their ethics will be shaped accordingly as they grow to adulthood... even as they refute and reject the framework that sourced those principles.

Yes, morality springs from God-- the fact that they got their moral code as a hand-me-down doesn't change the name of the manufacturer.

Let their values solidify in a different culture-- one where the spiritual roots of morality have been abolished-- and they'll be a whole different shape entirely.

Atheism, followed to its inescapable conclusion, unfettered by the framework of traditional values established by a spiritual worldview, is fatal. There is no God, so whom do I answer to? Only to myself... or to whomever wields the most force against my personal desires. hierarchy of the wolf-- the strongest rules, the weakest is a slave, and deservedly so. Man is All, and the most "evolved" takes all.
The unfettered law of the Atheist is the law of the Jungle-- the strong prey upon the weak.
I choose instead the law of God--- where the strong uplift the weak. Where my fellow man has a soul like my own, no matter his physical failures, intellectual shortcomings, or his subjective "quality of life." Where right and wrong don't change based on a moment's whim or mob rule.

RHJunior wrote:Atheism, followed to its inescapable conclusion, unfettered by the framework of traditional values established by a spiritual worldview, is fatal.

True, as far as it goes. But you've stated a specific application of a general theory. Let me expand it to a more general case:

The Meditations of Epicurus the Sage, ca. 400 B.C. wrote:One could say that virtue or faith or love is supreme in the universe, but each of these, when taken to extremes becoms perverse, and stability is lost, and that leads to madness.

Anything, taken to extremes, becomes, if not absolutely fatal, certainly detrimental. Moderation, people, moderation.

YES!! Thank you, David!! I find that moderation itself can matter in virtually everything?

Too much food? You get fat.

Too much sex? STD city.

Too much to drink? Killer hangover and DUI if you get really stupid.

Too much Religion? You end up perverting the tenets of that which you live by, and that is what I consider a crime.

Look at the Dark Ages, the Crusades, and other various persecutions of others for their faith. Most recently, the Taliban. What happens is that religion was taken too far.

I abandoned organized religion myself, because of too many "baby christians" and other things. That, and I see no need for a bunch of people to tell me how to worship. I still respect the way others worship, but I will voice my opinion should they get overzealous.

Religion does not equal morality and Vice-versa. Get used to the idea.

It really is in the presentation.

I'm what is called a passive atheist.
I have no real problem with religion, of any kind, unless it's shoved in my face or made to be official policy paid for with tax money.

Madeline O'Hare I never did like, due to her abrasive nature, and total intolerance of any religion.

But there are far more people who have the "I'm going to shove my religion on everybody whether they like it or not" attitude.

And they end up usually in some kind of trouble.

A good example is this Roy Moore, the chief justice of the state of Alabama.
If he's a Christian, so what.

But he's based some of his rulings on his interpretation of the Bible.
Also, he decided to put this ugly hunk of rock in the state's courtroom, with the 10 commandments on it, and he sneaked it in in the middle of the night.

In the current trial underway as to whether this rock should go or stay, Moore is showing nothing but contempt for the separation of church and state, and other religions.

And he keeps ignoring the fact that the 1rst amendment in the Constitution renders the 1rst Commandment invalid.

Another example of this is in the Boy Scouts recent decision to kick an Eagle scout out of their ranks, simply because he's honest and says he doesn't believe in any deity.

This is the same organization that keeps Scoutmasters in Florida and Texas, that lied about how many scouts were in their troop, so they could cheat the organization for more funding.

Recently I saw an interview in a prison, with a guy who is serving life for murdering two guys from his car he thought were gay.
He drove up, and shot them numerous times.
He has no remorse over what he did, and quoted Biblical verses that he claims justify his commiting the two murders.

In Florida Paul Hill was a notorious "pro-life" activist, cheering on anyone who did violent acts against anyone or anything associated with abortion.
He's on Florida's death row for killing a doctor, the doctor's bodyguard and severely wounding the doctor's wife, "as a gift to Jesus." (His words.)

Ah, Ralphie m'boy, such a loud declaration that the kettle is, indeed, black.

Heh. Nothing in the universe so self-righteous as an atheist...

-Which preceeds ten paragraphs of self-righteousness. "You, without God, are immoral scum." That's not self-righteous? You hypocrite. Can you even see your position here?

And dear heart, razzing people about the multiplicity of religions is not a valid refutation of the central contention of religion-- the existence of a Supreme Being.

-I'm sorry Junior, but yes, it is. It may not be the key but is is assuredly a key.

You, being an American Christian, think your religion, your particular denomination- even your particular interpretation OF that religion- is the correct one. But just as a starting example, the Baptists don't fully agree with you. Which one of you is right? Both of you claim to have the "Supreme Truth" but at certain points you not only disagree, but actively contradict.

How about the Muslims? Numerically, there's more Muslims in the world than all forms of Chrstians. Democratically then, are they right? Well, if that's the case, there's more Hindus than even Muslims. That must make them right. Right?

The different tenents of Christiantity at least use different variations of what was probably the same original book- but the Muslims use something else entirely, with no influence from your Book, and the Hindus are wholly different even from the Muslims. Different dieties, different ideas of afterlives, wholly different ideas of what is proper conduct for the righteous.

So who's right? Don't forget the Jews, Shintoists, Buddhists, the Greek, Roman and Norwegian polytheists, for that matter the Wiccans and Druids. Their faith is often just as strong as yours, so why does that make "your" position the "right" one?

I mean, other than raw self-righteous arrogance?

and who refused to budge their entrenched beliefs, even after the evidence was in, even when it cost lives. (Ask sometime about how long it took to convince, not the common people, but *honored doctors and surgeons* of the germ theory, vaccinations, blood transfusions, sutures to close wounds rather than red hot irons....)

-You mean like how Jehovah's Witnesses will not, and cannot accept blood transfusions- a known, proven, rigorously-tested lifesaving method developed scientifically- even at the danger of their own lives? Or how churches and religious groups denounce any and all forms of abortion, even in the case of saving the mother's life, even going as far as disallowing contraception?

How about the twenty million killed for their religious beliefs during the Crusades? The fifteen million dead in Bosnia-Hertzegovina, at war for a decade over essentially land and religious beliefs? The middle east? What's the taxonomic difference between a middle eastern Jew and an Arab? That difference is purely religious, and the fighting is over what three religions consider "Holy Land".

But no, science used close wounds with hot irons... three hundred years ago. Thus it is apparently more evil than the religious beliefs that caused forty people to be killed by zealots with "dynamite strapped to kids" just last week.

As far as "entrenched beliefs", how about the Roman Catholic Church finally forgiving the charges of Blasphemy and crimes against the Church against Galileio, for having the temerity to claim the Earth revolved around the Sun... four hundred years late, in 1992?

Worse, bad science in the 20th century made possible some of the most incredible evils of the 20th century....

-And thus invoking Godwin's Law.

Tell me, were Stalin's purges based on science, or Stalin's insanity and crippling paranoia? The Nazis may have used scientific methods to ill effect- just as a criminal may use an inanimate gun to commit a crime- but was this a fault of the science or a fault of the Nazis?

You, by previous comic strips, are a believer in the 2nd Amendment. If someone claims the gun is the cause of the crime, you would, quite rightly, say it's the criminal, not the tool, correct?

As far as the Nazis were concerned, was science the criminal or the tool?

Science, however, has also given us the Apollo program, satellite communications, heart transplants, limb reattachments, cell phones, this very cross-continent communications system we are now holding a discussion upon. Science has advanced astronomy, biology, geology. It's extended our lifespans, eased our daily work, improved our recreation.

All the while the Church has done... what, again?

And evolutionary scientists of the world applauded them all the way up the ladder.

-Now THAT is pure Jack Chick dogma. Stalin and Pol Pot may not have done what they did out of religious reasons, but to thereby imply that nonbelievers stood by and cheered when they did so? I just lost a great deal of respect for you Ralph- I had thought this could be a reasoned debate, not political mudslinging. I guess I was wrong.

But what they will not acknowledge is that, with no absolutes but the ones they set arbitrarily for themselves, they are moral gelatin-- the size and form of their morality is entirely dependent upon the mould it gells in.

-Do you have any sort of citation for that, or is it another claim pulled from the clear blue sky? I'm a nonbeliever, a nontheist. My parents, my brothers, my grandparents are- or were- as well. I have never killed anyone, I don't cut people off in traffic. I have a respectable home business, I hold doors open for others. My brothers have happy marriges and good kids who are polite and enjoyable, and have never once set foot in a Church.

Just where in the pits of your self-righteous arrogance do you assume that a nontheist is largely or wholly amoral? May I use that same arrogance and proclaim that all Catholic priests are in fact child molesters and pederasts?

Yes, morality springs from God-- the fact that they got their moral code as a hand-me-down doesn't change the name of the manufacturer.

-Again,in what arrogance do you assume I owe my morality to any god? My parents never set foot in a Church save on their wedding day, we had no bible in the house (though it was likely the one book we didn't have, I still have extensive libraries) we were fed no pap like "don't do that or God will hate you" or "don't do that or God won't let you into heaven" and we were strongly encouraged to look up our own answers to our questions.

To say that we owe "morality" to God is like saying we owe traffic laws to God, or we owe quiet resteraunt etiquette to God. One can- easily- have an empathy, if you will, for one's fellow man, with no influence from God or any deity. Yes, the Bible hijacks it as "Do unto others as you would have done unto you", but for the rest of us, something like a "how would you feel if you were the guy you just cut off in traffic?"

The concept is indeed the same, but I belabor under no "divine" threat- I do what I do, I act as I act because that's how I wish for others to act and do towards me. It is not a Damoclean sword of divine justice.

Atheism, followed to its inescapable conclusion, unfettered by the framework of traditional values established by a spiritual worldview, is fatal.

-Do you have any sort of citation for this as well, or is it another blue-sky claim from a Chick tract? There are more nontheists alive today than at any time in history, and the Churches have less influence- at least in American culture- that ever before. Yet nonreligion-based wars are at an ebb, worldwide hunger and unemployment are lower than in centuries past, lifespans are extending by years every decade or so, we're rapidly eradicating plagues and disease, infrastructure is extending drinking water to the deserts, communications to the antarctic, and air access to the outback.

Oh, silly me, that's all due to science, and therefore evil and can only result in death and dismemberment. My apologies.

This is quite literally the best time to be alive on this planet, and yet religions are- generally speaking and largely from a Western standpoint- ebbing in power and influence. Fatal? Hardly.

The unfettered law of the Atheist is the law of the Jungle

-Oh? Take god out of the equation and all of a sudden everything from traffic laws to the criminal justice system are rendered null and void? Religious tenets kept the highwaymen from robbing travellers in mideval england or France two hundred years ago?

I'd have a lot more respect for ya, Ralph, if you atleast based your arguments on logical premises, rather than religious dogma, rumor and innuendo.

Rennen

Rennen, from one atheist to another, please shut the "ficticious final resting place of sinners" up. How do you intend on winning any points here? Listing the flaws of another's arguement, citing hypocracy or demonstrating an absolute need to be "right"? Get over the notion that clubbing a person to death with logical rebukes and quotes is going to make anyone suddenly drop the tenants of ther belief and say, "oh, alright. I guess there really isn't a God." I've gone down that road too many times to count and I can honestly say that it has served only to hinder my happiness and increase my hatred of my fellow man. This line of contentious arguement is utterly self defeating to all parties involved. The concept is yet another boring example of "I'm right, you're wrong and look at how bad the world is because of people like YOU!"
To Ralph and the other religious members of this board, I would argue that Hobbes found perfectly acceptable means to morality without the necessity of a God in order to "set the limits," if it weren't for the obvious fact that I'd be just as guilty of hypocracy as Rennen claims Ralph is.
So here's my recommendation: Take a deep breath, step back, and realize that 1) This is Ralph's strip and he has the right to do whatever he wants with it. 2) If you don't like his particular spin on the story, his concepts about existance or any religious concept that he decides to put into his strip, you can stop reading at any time and find something else to do on the net. 3) Get into your mind this rather difficult notion: Other people won't agree with you *gasp* regardless of how hard you try to convince them! Shocking, I know.
If, for some rather depraved reason, you find screaming at each other and attacking differing viewpoints to be an enjoyable experience, then by all means continue your mindless and pointless debates... over the internet, on a message board for a comic strip, in the in a distant and remote corner of the web, where no one but you will care. I, for one, will continue to read Ralph's strip because I find his sense of humor to be pretty entertaining. I'll even ignore his recent comments on atheism and chalk them to the fact that he was only provoked by having someone deliberatly attack the core of his beliefs... gee, hardly a reason to get all in a huff, now isn't it? Actually, it's probably the ONLY reason to get all in a huff!

Noa

hmmm, which is better, Chocolate icecream or Vanilla?

Oh, please, Marcus, not another religious debate!

Noa, I don't presume to speak for all nontheists, nor do I expect to "win points".

What I would like, however, is a fair, reasoned, logical debate. Throw out the straw men, drop the character attacks, and argue point-on-point, as all good debates should be.

Arguments are good for you- the mind is a muscle, and like all muscles it needs to be periodically flexed and exercised. They're also fertile ground for research- I'd never looked up the Scientific American website, for example- and an excellent source for new information, such as the math involving lunar orbits.

For example, did you notice all the orbital calculations assumed as a base, a circular orbit? Did you know that neither the Earth's or the Moon's orbit is circular, it's actually quite elliptical. That doesn't invalidate the math, but it does ensure the math is not 100% correct.

I find these sorts of arguments thoroughly interesting, even on the surprisingly few occasions they delve into the name calling and character assassination.

I have no illusions of trying to "change anyone's mind"- in fact, I'd think rather poorly of someone with such an ephremal grasp on their faith, of whichever denomination, that a mere bulletin-board argument could sway any but the most precarious fence-sitters.

What I am interested in, if you boil it down, and on this particular subject- one of a great many that fascinate me- is to understand how the theist mind works. How does one explain the unexplainable? How does one reconcile Biblical statement with contrary scientific fact?

A favorite, asked of those who believe evolution, starting with single-celled organisms, but that were created by a, well, Creator; Okay, we can't see, hear or detect this God, He must be somewhere outside this continuum. Except, we'd have the exact same evidence if "God" happened to be one... well, man for want of a better word, who zipped through this solar system about 3.5 billion years ago, in a little spaceship.

Say he flew through, saw the potential in this planet, landed, and dropped off some artificially created biological material at a few random spots, and flew off to some other section of the galaxy.

He's been gone for three billion years, and even if he lived that long or his race did, there are a hundred billion other planets in a trillion galaxies to visit. Would we be able to detect him? See him in radiotelescopes? No, we'd have the exact same lack of evidence as the usual theists' deity model.

I then ask okay, why is your model any more or less believable than my proposed model?

The answers are always fascinating. But they always boil down to "I just know. I have faith".

Usually I then ask, Okay, why do you believe so vehemently, why is your faith so strong? Moreover, why do you believe something from a story that we, as men, as humans, wrote?

The answers- when given, and this is usually when the theist picks up his ball and goes home- are endlessly fascinating.

This, as an argument, is actually very, very tame. If you want true debate, chapter and verse, citation vs. documentation, may favorite hangout is the Straight Dope Message Board. I can barely hold my own there, but from what I've seen of Junior's arguments, he'd be chopped off at the knees.

For example, this one thread alone blows most of Ralph's arguments out of the water.

This sort of argument should force both sides to revisit their worldview, to rethink their mindset. I can honestly say I have at least once thought "Okay, what if he did do it. How would we know?"

And until a theist can honestly say he's thought to him or herself and said "Okay, what if he didn't do it? What if it did 'just happen'?" then can he say his faith is really all that solid? That unchallengable?

Rennen

Rennen,
First off, the notion that you are not speaking for all non-theists is irrellivent. Two sides of a debate are being shown here and you are clearly on one side. When I mentioned the fact that I was an atheist, I just wanted to let you know that you weren't going to be able to use the excuse "Noa must be a religious fanatic" as a means of dismissing my very deliberate attack on you.
The "winning points" crack was tongue in cheek because there isn't a scoreboard up in the forum, nor is there a voting match to seek an approval rating from other chatters. To be quite exact, I was trying to point out that there is no winning in a debate on religion, but there is plenty of harm and abuse.

As for the desire for a "fair, reasoned, logical debate," I'd say that the chances of that happening are long since past. Various threads in this forum have exhausted the patience of even the most practical of posters, to the point where the best we can hope for is broad generalization and insulting behavior. I would think that implying that Ralph was a hypocrite would have been a fairly obvious point to that.

The mind is a muscle... alright, won't say it's the best way of putting it (seeing as I'm in a combative mood at the moment... this too shall pass), but yes, debate is a good exercize for the mental process. Also, they are quite enjoyable even when they do drift into the character attacks and recriminations... I would pose that your notion on debating the "theist mind," as you put it, is inherently inflamitory. Now Ralph and every other theist who cares to join this debate, is reduced to the lackluster position of "case study" in the hopes of discovering "what makes a religious person religious?" Again, I state that this approach invites disaster to the "fair, reasoned, logical debate," you've now reached a level of condescention from which you can only be viewed as arrogant and self-serving.

Beside the already obvious point that you already KNOW the answer to that question. In case you haven't heard it, let me explain why the "theist mind" operates as it does: The Universe is a vast and oft times cruel place. We live short lives where meaning and understanding are precious and scarce. Even the notion that our lives are irrelivant and serve no purpose except to feed an endless cycle of birth, life, aging and death is abhorent and frightening. Assuming the lack of existance of God, even a belief in something not there is a markedly better alternative, for a varitey of reasons: Purpose, importance and a sense of order in an otherwise chaotic and heartless existance not being the least of them.

Ask a person who believes in God why they pray and you will probably get a form of "because I can feel God when I talk to Him." There is more to it than the idiotic assumption that "maybe if I wish really hard for it, it will be true," that many atheists seem all too quick to assume. I would at least contend that something about devotion works, otherwise why would anyone even bother with it? Nevermind the scientific evidence that people who express a high level of piety have less stress, longer and happier lives (don't ask for source info on that... I remember hearing about it in a philosophy class years ago and couldn't tell you who conducted what study). For these people, God is a real force in thier lives. They sense Him in a manner that I cannot because of faith and conviction.

Your arguement that a "man" (let's just posit "another lifeform" here) might have passed by this planet a few million years ago may be just as valid an arguement towards explaining how this planet's life came to be, but it offers no sense of morality or concept of purpose like the belief in God does.

As an atheist I can say honestly that my concepts of the Universe are lacking. Ralph is right in his arguement that I don't have any initial reason to hold to morality when my life is limited, transient and fleeting. I could go out and kill, rape, main, etc and the best take on my actions that I could justify with would be "well, in 10,000 years, who will care?" I have to find harder pressed reasons to accept a moral code, like Hobbes did. I have to struggle with the notion that I'm doomed to become nothing more than dust in a few short decades... IF I'm lucky. However you care to cut it, accepting the notion that there isn't a God is to accept the notion that life really is as cruel and difficult as it seems, and to no purpose or design save that of Natural Law. Should it be a wonder that some people want to have more than that as the basis of thier lives? How can you possibly say "I don't get theists," when you live in this world of hardships and confusion?

Should we debate the concept of God? Sure. Everyone can benifet from trying to solidify thier beliefs through poking and prodding. But just because some theists "pick up thier ball and go home" during the debate shouldn't be an invitation to ridicule, belittle or cry foul. It's FAITH! It doesn't HAVE a full blown logical explaination, complete with diagrams and spreadsheets. It's not supposed to, it's FAITH! The only person you should really challange on this issue is yourself... and I think it's fair to say that you have already come up with your own answer to the question of God. Let everyone else have thier belief. Like I said in another thread, the only time you should even consider worrying about another's beliefs is when those beliefs are taken as a legitimate reason to harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Otherwise I think it best that people have whatever ideology keeps them out of trouble and gives them a sense of well being.

Noa

Hmm. You know, I'm not suprised that our debate here got so angry, since this is really something that people on both sides of the issue feel quite strongly about. Having said that, I also think everyone should take a deep breath and think about what they are saying before they post it. So far the people here seem to be doing that. That's a good thing, but if the trend is going to contiune then a slight change of topic may be necessecary. I think, that just as no person of sincere faith is going lose that faith because of a bulletin board, few atheists will be converted by one. Thus, I'd like to ask for an intelligent debate on the subject that's been brought up here: Is there such a thing as absolute morality, in the abscence of a higher power in the universe? I for one feel that there is not, that faith is central to morality, but as I have said, I find it unproductive to try and convince others of anything here, and it's quite arguable that winning such a debate neither proves the existance/nonexistance of a creator anyhow. Nevertheless, I am curious, because several atheists here talk about their morality, and I am curious as to where it stems from. If I lost my faith, I think I would find it quite difficult to "give a damn" so to speak, about anything. I'm curious how those without faith feel about this. Where does morality come from in the abscence of any true consquences for your actions?

Madcat,

Seeing as you asked so nicely:

Most ethical standards can be based outside of the notion of a morally perfect and omnipotent creator by recognizing that we all have to live with one another and certain standards need to be in place for that to happen (at least with any success). A lot of this is actually common sense, but I

(This discussion has been extremely interesting for me; between Madcat's and Noa's postings, I simply had to delurk!)

[quote="Noa"]Mind you, the bad side to this atheist

Good point.

Which brings us back full circle....
To being able to admit that another being has that indefinable quality we can only, empirically, credit to our selves-- a soul.

which is interesting in and of itself, apart from it's numerous connections to religion,

regardless of wether you have faith in religion or evolution, do you believe that You personally have a Soul?

if yes, what do you believe a Soul is? I would especially like comments from the religiously knowledgeable on this matter, how does the Bible as well as other other religions define the soul?

here's a definition from Encarta Encyclopedia

soul (s

The source of morality, now that is something worth contemplating. (Socrates would approve, I think.) As an athiest, where do I get my ethics from? Am I just absorbing them by osmosis from the surrounding Christian culture?

I see no reason to deny that I'm influenced by it. After all, no man is an island. However.... The next question we have to ask is whether the culture has ethics because it's Christian, or whether the churches are just unfairly taking credit for something that would have been there anyhow.

If you look around the world, as well as through history, you'll find most cultures have a sense of right and wrong that doesn't vary too drastically. There are some differences in their taboos. There are some differences in their ideas of what's a fair and just punishment for various transgressions. And of course, many of them have treated certain classes of their people as inferiors -- often women, but sometimes other classes, as in the caste system.

But looking past the differences, there are also many things that seem to be universal. Lying, stealing and cheating is bad. Wantonly harming people or destroying things is bad. Sexual promiscuity is frowned upon, albeit in varying degrees. Helping the weak, the sick, and the poor is good. Marrying and raising a family is good. And so forth..... And this appears to be pretty universal whether you're a Christian, Muslim, Shintoist, Confucianist, or even -- heaven forfend -- a godless Communist.

Now, some overly intellectual athiests would probably step in here and start talking about the need for a society to have standards of behavior in order to function. As a practical matter, you can't build a society and hold it together if people are running around fighting each other, ripping each other off, and generally tearing things down. I've heard that argument before, and I'm sure it's true, but it strikes me as being a bit cold and bloodless. I think it's not the entire answer.

At the individual level, morality is based on what we care about. One of our posters here (I forget who, sorry) used the term "empathy", and that works for me. If you care about people, you don't want to see them hurt. If you sympathize with their problems, you might even want to help them.

If you go back to the earliest records of human culture, to the cave men using stone tools and painting pictures of their hunts on cave walls, the archeological evidence suggests that they cared for their elderly, their infirm, those who couldn't have survived on their own. Human beings are social animals. We're programmed to care about each other, it's in our genes.

It transfers over to other things -- not just people, but anything you might care about. Do you care about animals? Do you care about a developing embryo? Do you care about the future of the world? This is where a lot of the conflicts come from, where people disagree about what they care about, what's important, what's worth protecting and what isn't.....

RHJunior wrote:Which brings us back full circle....
To being able to admit that another being has that indefinable quality we can only, empirically, credit to our selves-- a soul.

;)

Well then! It seems your quarrel is not with atheists or humanists after all. Your beef is with solipsists (i.e. "I'm the only real human in existence and everyone else around me are just walking, talking automatons") and, as are probably more common, "selective solipsists" (i.e. "Me and my buddies are the only real humans…").

I think that solipsism, as a worldview, does pass muster with the "If everybody thought this way, we'd be DOOMED!" fear. No doubt there are many people out there with such a view, living their lives without harming another—but methinks they would fall into the category of fair-weather friend. Unless a real, honest-to-God solipsist would care to set this little skunk straight…

Actually, ethics are apparently quite plastic in their development among uninfluenced societies; there have been people who dedicated their careers to studying it. Two prime examples are the entirety of Native Americas cultures, which developed pretty much on its own right up until the colonization and 'conquering' of the Americas; and African tribal cultures, some of which remain nearly isolated to this day.

Within these, you find people (okay, that was obvious). These people live in a social manner (ie, there's more than one), and they all have rules. That's a good point in itself, there has not once been a successful anarchistic society (almost by definition). These rules vary, but most seem to include selfish (not bad in this case) regulations, intent on protecting a person's self and possessions. (Don't hurt me, kill me, steal from me, or I or someone else will get you.)

At varying points these rules break down (its okay to kill them because they tried to kill you/ are from another tribe/ are a sacrifice/ etc), at varying degrees for varying situations (there's a tribe in Africa that has a festival in which the women are encouraged to sleep with other men).

I buy empathy, because I know I have it; but at the very basal level, I don't think it's the driving force. Self-preservation is so much more instinctual; albeit complex (caring for the infirm may be an act of self-preservation because of wisdom/knowledge that may be of aid would otherwise be lost, etc).

I won't comment about religion here, because the internet's a backwards place for such expression.