[Atilla]

You have faith that there is no hell, as it can't be proven that it doesn't exist just as much as it can be proven that it can. This is why I'm an agnostic; both theists and atheists think they're right when there's no facts proving it right and no facts proving it wrong.

Can you prove to me that you're an agnostic? In actuality, agnosticism is all we can hope to amount to, because nothing is provable. Facts do not prove or disprove anything. They just lead us to believe certain things are true or untrue. In the case of adding 2 plus 2 and getting 4, you can assume that everytime you add 2 and 2, you will always get 4. You cannot truly know this unless you were adding 2 and 2 together for eternity (which by defenition doesn't end, so you wouldn't ever know).

Despite the fact that it can never be proven, it is safe to act on the assumption that 2 plus 2 will yield 4. I cannot prove this, but it hasn't failed me yet. For me, atheism is the same way. I cannot prove that no god exists, but I act as if none does, because my experiences have lead me to believe this.

My point is, agnosticism is correct, but is just utterly worthless. While I am an agnostic, I prefer the stances atheism offers. I may not be 100% sure the Christian god does not exist, but at 99.99%, I'd feel safe denying him. I don't make the mistake of saying I'm 100% sure of something, because I know that it's impossible to be sure of anything. On the other hand, my actions will reflect what I cannot believe.

On the other hand, there are people who hold beliefs without any solid evidence and will state them as fact. Although theists are more often than not guilty of this, an atheist will sometimes be guilty as well. Whats worse is when they do this when solid evidence is presented to the contrary. Blind faith is shakey enough, but defiant faith is dangerous. Which brings me to my little table saying what I believe to be acceptable:


Good faith: Belief in something with strong evidence to support it. Ex: 2+2=4

Acceptable Faith: Belief in something with some evidence to support it and little to refute. Ex: I think this post will get a response.

Blind Faith: Belief in something with little or no evidence to support it, but little or none to refute it. Ex: I believe there's a teacup in orbit around Mars.

Defiant Faith: Belief in something with little or no evidence to support it, but strong evidence against it. Ex: The earth is flat.


We have words to accurately describe these, and they are: knowledge, beliefs, hunches, and stupidity respectively. My belief that there is no hell is good at best, and acceptable at worse.

Can you prove you're reading at your computer right now? Can you prove that the world we live in isn't just a simulation of the mind controlled by machines in a parallel world?

Well I didn't want to get off on a tangent about absolute truth. Now that is abstract philosophy.

But yeah, I would categorize Atheism under Blind Faith just as I would Theism, because I don't see why it would be safe to act on the assumption that God doesn't exist. If he does, then you're supposedly going to hell for denying him.

And I don't see why agnosticism is utterly worthless; it satisfies both ends. I haven't denied him, but I haven't accepted him. Unless I'm quite mistaken, only denial is the mortal sin. We won't ever know until we die, or until God gives us one hell of a sign (oh the irony of that sentence ).

Edit: And btw, if you're not 100% sure that God or any deity doesn't exist, then you're not an Atheist.

[Neraphym]

The reason I say it is worthless is because no action can be taken from it. I rather dislike polarizing absolutes, yet I shall use this example: If you are agnostic, do you chose to follow the bible or ignore it? Regardless of your belief in agnosticism, you'll either take the Christian path and follow it (well, parts of it ) or take the Atheist route and ignore it. You cannot do both. Although I am agnostic myself, I often walk the path of atheism.

I'm not here to get into "is there a god" debate. I have my beliefs and people can have theirs, and as long as they don't conflict with how I live my life, I take little interest in others'. I agree that Christianity is blind faith. While some parts are actually good faith (the existence of Jerusalem), others are defiant (pi = 3). Often Christians say their believes are good faith as they have 'mountains' of evidence in the bible. The problem is, their evidence, too, is faith. In my opinion, belief in the infallability of the bible is 100% blind faith.

In the case of Atheism, I would say overall it's acceptable, not blind. It is not so much the solid evidence for there not being a god, which would be blind faith. Rather, it is the serious lack of evidence in support of there being a god. To use another dumb math example, I'll say 4 + x = y. Not knowing x or y, you cannot say what either is. If one group of people go around saying that x = 3 and y=7, an atheist would be skeptical. Although x and y fit there, there's no evidence to show that x = 3 and y = 7. They were arbitrarily assigned. There are an infinite other possibilities to satisfy this answer. Additionally, an atheist might have some evidence on hand to suggest that x < 2. In this case, an atheist can be very sure in good faith that x != 3 and y != 7. While some atheists deny god blindly, most have strong evidence to support their disbelief.

[Atilla]

The reason I say it is worthless is because no action can be taken from it. I rather dislike polarizing absolutes, yet I shall use this example: If you are agnostic, do you chose to follow the bible or ignore it? Regardless of your belief in agnosticism, you'll either take the Christian path and follow it (well, parts of it ) or take the Atheist route and ignore it. You cannot do both. Although I am agnostic myself, I often walk the path of atheism.

I'm not here to get into "is there a god" debate. I have my beliefs and people can have theirs, and as long as they don't conflict with how I live my life, I take little interest in others'. I agree that Christianity is blind faith. While some parts are actually good faith (the existence of Jerusalem), others are defiant (pi = 3). Often Christians say their believes are good faith as they have 'mountains' of evidence in the bible. The problem is, their evidence, too, is faith. In my opinion, belief in the infallability of the bible is 100% blind faith.

In the case of Atheism, I would say overall it's acceptable, not blind. It is not so much the solid evidence for there not being a god, which would be blind faith. Rather, it is the serious lack of evidence in support of there being a god. To use another dumb math example, I'll say 4 + x = y. Not knowing x or y, you cannot say what either is. If one group of people go around saying that x = 3 and y=7, an atheist would be skeptical. Although x and y fit there, there's no evidence to show that x = 3 and y = 7. They were arbitrarily assigned. There are an infinite other possibilities to satisfy this answer. Additionally, an atheist might have some evidence on hand to suggest that x < 2. In this case, an atheist can be very sure in good faith that x != 3 and y != 7. While some atheists deny god blindly, most have strong evidence to support their disbelief.

This is somewhat an argument of "Strong vs. Weak" Atheism. The strong argument is for people who live their lives completely believing that there is no such thing as any deity and any who believe in them are fools, never straying from their own path (quite similar to fundamentalists of any theist religion), even though there is some level of historical evidence (other than the Bible) to back some of their claims up. The weak just encompasses the large group of non-theists. If categorized this way, Agnosticism would fall under weak Atheism.

But anyway, going back to the original post, I don't see any problem with secular morality, I was just acknowledging the fact that the way things are the way they are is because of the majority of people believing and following the old testament's morals, which really are in all actuality fairly standard to follow even if you are a secularist (with the exception of the first and second commandments). But perhaps if the world wasn't so influenced by religion this might not be true. Who knows.

I've actually taken an Ethics course, so I have a pretty broad knowledge of the structure of morality and all the different philosophies behind it, and perhaps you should read some of Immanuel Kant's work on the Categorical Imperative. I liked him; the end shouldn't justify the means. How people get to an end is just as important as how good the outcome is.

[Neraphym]

1st Commandment - Exodus 20:3 “Thou shalt have no other gods before me�
Christians follow it, and Atheists in a way follow it. Then again, the whole trinity thing is somewhat of a loophole to avoid breaking this rule. The trinity isn't even in the bible, its just derived to satisfy this commandment.

2nd Commandment - Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water below.�
Christians never follow this, neither do Atheists.

3rd Commandment - Exodus 20:7 “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain�
Some Christians are good on this, but the vast majority aren't. Atheists really don't care to invoke a deity they don't believe in, so I guess we follow it. Funny how on this particular commandment, Atheists follow it best, from my experience.

4th. Commandment, Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy�
Sabbath = Saturday. Not sure how it got moved to sunday, but even so, few Christians worship on Saturday. This has no mention of the "no work" stuff, which I persume is somewhere in Lev. or Deut. Atheists don't give a darn what day it is, they're all the same.

5th. Commandment, Exodus 20:12 “Honour thy father and thy mother�
I'm sure most Christians and Atheists respect their parents to an extent, but the punishments for breaking this are usually death, and no sane Christian or Atheist follows through.

6th. Commandment, Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill�
Here's one we can all agree on. Except the definitional war between kill and murder. I'd like to see a world with no murder, but there are some acceptable times when killing is necessary.

7th. Commandment, Exodus 20:14 “Thou shalt not commit adultery�
Can't argue this one, either. The definition of what constitues adultery is different between many groups of people.


I'm bored, someone get the last three. Coveting, Stealing, and False Witness, I believe. The first one is ok in my book, the second two aren't by any standards.


Ultimately, if you go back through the 'morals' listed in the old testament, you'll find just about all of them to be seemingly rediculous and prescribing horrible punishments for breaking them.

[Aaron]

1st Commandment - Exodus 20:3 “Thou shalt have no other gods before me�
Christians follow it, and Atheists in a way follow it. Then again, the whole trinity thing is somewhat of a loophole to avoid breaking this rule. The trinity isn't even in the bible, its just derived to satisfy this commandment.

The Trinity is indeed just a concept. Most Christians claim that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the same being with the same power. I don't think the original proponents of this theory intended it to be interpreted this way. I think of it in a internet-like way. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all "God" in the sense of "God" as the highest title, like "Administrator." They aren't physically the same being, but all "Admins" of the universe with the same power.

2nd Commandment - Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water below.�
Christians never follow this, neither do Atheists.

This was intended to dissuade the Jews to not use "mantle piece" gods. People of that region and culture traditionally made little idols to put in their house to remind them of their gods. God doesn't want his people to make little action figures of him, because he is too mighty to be likened as a little figurine.

3rd Commandment - Exodus 20:7 “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain�
Some Christians are good on this, but the vast majority aren't. Atheists really don't care to invoke a deity they don't believe in, so I guess we follow it. Funny how on this particular commandment, Atheists follow it best, from my experience.

This commandment doesn't mean "don't say 'Jesus Christ' when you stub your toe!" The original intent was to keep people from associating God's name with things that he doesn't support or want to be associated with.

4th. Commandment, Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy�
Sabbath = Saturday. Not sure how it got moved to sunday, but even so, few Christians worship on Saturday. This has no mention of the "no work" stuff, which I persume is somewhere in Lev. or Deut. Atheists don't give a darn what day it is, they're all the same.

The Sabbath is just a day of rest. It never says that you need to worship on the Sabbath. Tradition has said that you should, but God says nothing about it. God "rested" once he was done creating the Earth, so he wants his people to also. It gives them a "time out" and allows them to reflect on what he has created. It's silly to think that you should only worship or commune with God on Sunday. That can be done any time throughout the week. If you put too much emphasis on "going to church," then you miss the point of the Christian faith: Having a personal relationship with God. The Church was originally a sort of discussion group, anyways. Now it's evolved into a sort of business.

5th. Commandment, Exodus 20:12 “Honour thy father and thy mother�
I'm sure most Christians and Atheists respect their parents to an extent, but the punishments for breaking this are usually death, and no sane Christian or Atheist follows through.

Where does it say that you would be punished to death for not honoring your parents?

6th. Commandment, Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill�
Here's one we can all agree on. Except the definitional war between kill and murder. I'd like to see a world with no murder, but there are some acceptable times when killing is necessary.

Agreed.

7th. Commandment, Exodus 20:14 “Thou shalt not commit adultery�
Can't argue this one, either. The definition of what constitues adultery is different between many groups of people.

Agreed.

Coveting isn't really right by my inner morals and conscience. Stealing is indeed wrong. Bearing false witness is also wrong.

Ultimately, if you go back through the 'morals' listed in the old testament, you'll find just about all of them to be seemingly rediculous and prescribing horrible punishments for breaking them.

That's true. But, I'm not an Orthodox Jew, so those don't matter to me. Jesus fulfilled the law, so the Old Testament laws don't apply to those who have accepted his sacrifice. Some are good to live by, though. The Old Testament law was an interim law for the Jews to follow until the Messiah came to be the end-all, be-all sacrifice in God's eyes. Jesus' taking on of the world's sins was sufficient enough for God to allow us to spend eternity with him. How Jesus' death and resurrection was good enough to forgive us all, I don't know. I just have faith that it was.

[Kaezion]

for this topic, i won't advocate for or against any religion.

what i will say, though, is that the concept of morality is deeply rooted in religion - whether it be Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc.

you mentioned your conscience as a deterring factor against murder, Alpha - why is that so? why should you feel guilty at all about eliminating a member of your own species? isn't that, after all, the mechanism by which natural selection works? my strong belief is that religion has had a very big role in shaping the 'consciences' of individuals in society - it teaches you that you should feel guilty about killing someone else (as well as other crimes, or 'sins', if you will). even for someone who claims to be atheist, this circumstance cannot be escaped because society, which has an overwhelming significance in shaping our minds (and therefore our consciences), is based on a system of morals that can be traced back to one of the religions of early humanity - even for a secular society. you say that you have constructed your own morals, but the fact that your conscience plays into it already signals the fact that your 'original' morals have been influenced by religion.

and when your conscience is removed from the deterring factors, then it is no longer morality that stops you from committing murder, it is self-interest; you simply wish not to face the consequences of committing murder. but it is true that you can define self-interest as a form of morality; more on this in the following.

this, in essence, is the problem that Nietzsche addresses. without a belief in a supreme and universal framework that imposes a fundamental moral order upon the world in which we live, we face the need to construct our own morals. this is why humans have relied on religion from the beginning of humanity; to avoid the tremendous responsibility of creating their own morals and values (though in fairness to the early humans, this was probably an impossible task at the time due to the mental capacity and philosophical background required).

you cannot simultaneously embrace, with any credibility, both atheism and any traditional concept of right and wrong. you must create a system of morals for yourself as an atheist (and contrary to your claim in the first post, i don't believe you have achieved this yet, as i have said above - the fact that you mention feeling guilty clearly indicates that you still adhere to a traditional concept of right and wrong).

[Neraphym]

2nd Commandment Response (Too lazy to even quote):

Erm, I have a good understanding of why they have it, I am simply stating that if you walk into a Christian church, you will see at least a cross, and probably depictions of Jesus. I'd think those items would be in violation of this ammendment, regardless of its current lack of necessity (let's face it, most of those 'other' gods have died out).



5th Amendment Response:

Exodus 21:17 “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death”.
I think Paul (New Test.) also said a few things about stoning disobedient children.



Response to Kaezion:

why should you feel guilty at all about eliminating a member of your own species? isn't that, after all, the mechanism by which natural selection works?

You raise an excellent point. I also agree that religion has had a huge impact on our morality. First, I must say that humans are not rational beings. As much as I try to remove emotion from the equation, I cannot. Killing would bring out harsh, irrational emotional response that I have no control over. Maybe in my genes, there's something telling me killing is not benefition to the species and I should stop at 1 kill before my species dies off from homicide. Maybe its a more recent development from hundreds of years of religious teachings telling my family line not to kill. I simply don't know, but I embrace the end result of me not having a desire to needlessly kill things.

If you do remove the conscience from the equation, you are left with self interest. The fact is, self interest works, too. From the religious perspective, the self-interest is not being punished by god. From the secular view, it's not being punished by man. Regardless, it is fear of punishment that drives the self interest angle.

without a belief in a supreme and universal framework that imposes a fundamental moral order upon the world in which we live, we face the need to construct our own morals.

And this is percisely what I hope to accomplish. But, for a moment, look at religious-based morals from a different perspective: that of the atheist. Man creates morals and then claims that they came from God. Anything said to be a moral is ultimately comming from a human. Therefore, I just see the bible as one such attempt to construct a set of morals. In some places, I agree, others, I think punishment is a bit harsh, and some places I am utterly disgusted by. When I make moral decisions, I CAN overlap my morals with Christian morals ifI feel that they are compatable in those places.

[Nuu™™]

you mentioned your conscience as a deterring factor against murder, Alpha - why is that so? why should you feel guilty at all about eliminating a member of your own species? isn't that, after all, the mechanism by which natural selection works? my strong belief is that religion has had a very big role in shaping the 'consciences' of individuals in society - it teaches you that you should feel guilty about killing someone else (as well as other crimes, or 'sins', if you will). even for someone who claims to be atheist, this circumstance cannot be escaped because society, which has an overwhelming significance in shaping our minds (and therefore our consciences), is based on a system of morals that can be traced back to one of the religions of early humanity - even for a secular society. you say that you have constructed your own morals, but the fact that your conscience plays into it already signals the fact that your 'original' morals have been influenced by religion.

I disagree. Let's say you have two separate communities of humans. One is, to put it simply, immoral. The other is not. Which community would be more successful in the evolutionary sense? In the moral community, everyone would be co-operating, working to common goals, et cetera et cetera. The immoral community has a lot of fighting, destruction and death, and all the individuals are working to satisfy their own goals.

Perhaps society influences our morals, but our genes, without a doubt, influence them also.

[Kaezion]

nuu, i might have overstated the evolution thing. it was simply an example - i was referring to the kind of clashes that you might see between males of other species competing for a female or dominance over a territory. clearly, there is a connection here between killing and natural selection. obviously, this does not, by any means, apply to every event in which natural selection takes place.

the point i was trying to make is this: why would a human being feel remorse at killing?
i was trying to establish the fact that religion has had a huge role in shaping our consciences.

so yeah, i hope you don't look into the natural selection thing too deeply.

[Aaron]

i was trying to establish the fact that religion has had a huge role in shaping our consciences.

I agree. We must give all religions credit for helping human civilization progress immensely. This goes for society's moral framework as well as our way of life today.

[Nuu™™]

nuu, i might have overstated the evolution thing. it was simply an example - i was referring to the kind of clashes that you might see between males of other species competing for a female or dominance over a territory. clearly, there is a connection here between killing and natural selection. obviously, this does not, by any means, apply to every event in which natural selection takes place.

the point i was trying to make is this: why would a human being feel remorse at killing?
i was trying to establish the fact that religion has had a huge role in shaping our consciences.

so yeah, i hope you don't look into the natural selection thing too deeply.

Meh, you misinterpreted. >.< What I was doing was answering that humans feel remorse for killing because of evolution, as well as environmental influences. This was a hypothesis that I had thought of before I read your post and I was looking for an opportunity to make it seem relevant to this topic.

[Moogalite]

Humans are conscious of our surrondings and the majority of us have a good idea of the effect of our actions. As we are so conscious and as we are so arrogantly named homo homo sapiens- wise wise men. We invented the idea of faith so that we can explain our actions and an attempt to explain our existence which was a possible answer to some of the big questions. Religion sets a code of morals but nearly every person has a set of morals ingrained into themselves from childhood,regardless of religion, this is ingrained into them from birth, from their parents and over life. It is a set of ideals set down by our own mind so as to justify actions. War is inevitable and will always occur whilst we overpopulate the world but we like to justify this by saying it is for the increase in the quality of life. Religion is one way of explaining our actions and our morals.

[Neraphym]

I've since done a lot of research on morality and the like, and I'm satisfied with my moral framework. I'm also convinced that religion does not have a monopoly on morality, and that secular, situational ethics are far superior at maintaining the social benefits of morality. Rather than restate my opinions (some have changed), I'll take questions.