so why don't you have religion?

[Lark]

Atheism doesn't ask anything and neither does belief in deities. They're starting points. The difference I see is that when you build up from atheism, you aren't limited by someone else's notions of good or bad, whereas with a specific religion as a starting point, you either agree with someone else or are forced to come up with convoluted justifications for why the religion actually should be interpreted your way.

I am confident my moral system asks at least as much of me as any religion asks of its followers. And I had to come up with it on my own.

I can understand that the mindset which has dropped the notion that the world is the centre of the universe for the one that man is would find an existential and ethic code that's "all your own work" vital but I dont see things that way, I drive a car which I didnt build by hand, I use a factory built laptop, I dont need to invent things myself to find their basic utility and function.

For me, and I understand you dont feel this way but anyway, for me the existence of a deity is a point of fact, its like gravity, I dont need to discover gravity through my own process of experimentation to know it exists, even though, given you're perspective, it would be someone elses idea.

So how are the precepts real or physical? I'm not trying to be a dick; I'm really interested.

Also, how is the self not the be-all end-all? It is the basis of everything you will ever experience.

I would ask rather how are they not.

The self is not the be all and end all, in fact I find that idea more than a little disgusting.

 

[Lark]

Doesn't it provide many useful examples of what a god could be?

I would consider the religions of the world to be more inspirational and less harmful.

That I would agree with.

 

[King sns]

Doesn't it provide many useful examples of what a god could be?

I would consider the religions of the world to be more inspirational and less harmful.

Yeah, of course. And if you consider religion in terms of "all religions" it's not so bad either. "A" religion and following actually feels restrictive and almost feels morally wrong to me, (in a backwards kind of way.)

 

[redacted]

I can understand that the mindset which has dropped the notion that the world is the centre of the universe for the one that man is would find an existential and ethic code that's "all your own work" vital but I dont see things that way, I drive a car which I didnt build by hand, I use a factory built laptop, I dont need to invent things myself to find their basic utility and function.

I'm not saying I wasn't influenced by other people's thoughts and ideas; that would be pretty ludicrous. I'm just saying I personally determined the utility each tenet of my moral code. Religious people could potentially do this as well, but they have less incentive to, as the entire moral structure is already in place for them.

For me, and I understand you dont feel this way but anyway, for me the existence of a deity is a point of fact, its like gravity, I dont need to discover gravity through my own process of experimentation to know it exists, even though, given you're perspective, it would be someone elses idea.

I don't see how the existence of a deity is a fact like gravity. You can see gravity all the time -- there is no other explanation that would account for the forces that are clearly visible. A computational account of the mind, on the other hand, can explain our experience. A game theory account of morals can explain the origin of certain ethical systems. Evolution can explain the difference between our species and others, etc.

I would ask rather how are they not.

There is nothing "out there" (except maybe other people's opinions) that tells us how we should act. Our actions are determined by the computer-code of our brain given the inputs of the senses.

The self is not the be all and end all, in fact I find that idea more than a little disgusting.

But the fact that you find it disgusting IS the self. The fact that you care about other people IS the self.

I care about other people a lot. That is a property of ME.

 

[Beargryllz]

Yeah, of course. And if you consider religion in terms of "all religions" it's not so bad either. "A" religion and following actually feels restrictive and almost feels morally wrong to me, (in a backwards kind of way.)

Oh, definitely. It would be silly to follow only one religion exclusively.

 

[King sns]

Oh, definitely. It would be silly to follow only one religion exclusively.

That's a stretch, too.. I'm just one who feels like values/ religion should be very personalized to the user. It's like I know there is something to organized religion if not just for a sense of community and support and all the other things that go with just worshiping together. (Regardless of the details of that worship.) But for me, I don't understand God very well through that medium, it just doesn't work well. I'm a bit lazy first of all, but second of all, found that I made great strides with my value system just by letting it go. It's like, I'm an agnostic, but the further I get from religion, the greater capacity I have had for believing and feeling spiritually connected to the universe.

Something different could be true for someone else, and as long as it's working,it's not silly to me. It's just silly to blindly and fearfully follow religions without giving a second thought to the spiritual side of things. But we all know that.

 

[Beargryllz]

That's a stretch, too.. I'm just one who feels like values/ religion should be very personalized to the user. It's like I know there is something to organized religion if not just for a sense of community and support and all the other things that go with just worshiping together. (Regardless of the details of that worship.) But for me, I don't understand God very well through that medium, it just doesn't work well. I'm a bit lazy first of all, but second of all, found that I made great strides with my value system just by letting it go. It's like, I'm an agnostic, but the further I get from religion, the greater capacity I have had for believing and feeling spiritually connected to the universe.

Something different could be true for someone else, and as long as it's working,it's not silly to me. It's just silly to blindly and fearfully follow religions without giving a second thought to the spiritual side of things. But we all know that.

It is a stretch, but I would feel comfortable saying that few specific beliefs or philosophies will answer a person's questions entirely. If they could, I might worry that that individual has not faced enough questions.

 

[Coriolis]

I can understand that the mindset which has dropped the notion that the world is the centre of the universe for the one that man is would find an existential and ethic code that's "all your own work" vital but I dont see things that way, I drive a car which I didnt build by hand, I use a factory built laptop, I dont need to invent things myself to find their basic utility and function.

For me, and I understand you dont feel this way but anyway, for me the existence of a deity is a point of fact, its like gravity, I dont need to discover gravity through my own process of experimentation to know it exists, even though, given you're perspective, it would be someone elses idea.

You are doing it again.

Moral codes and values that are not based on a religion are not "all your own work". They are not made up from scratch. They are not developed without regard to anyone or anything else. Religion, including your religion, is not the only source of or inspiration for morals, values, ethics, and spiritual principles.

Neither man nor the world is the center of the universe. You don't need to invent something yourself to find its basic utility, but if you expect it to serve you well, you need to make at least some attempt to understand it. You might even learn how to troubleshoot it so you are not at others' mercy when it fails to function as expected.

Similarly, you don't need to discover gravity yourself to know it exists, but you need to study it yourself to understand it and to know how to work with it. God is not much different. If my only experience of God comes through reading about other people's "experiments", I don't really know God at all.

Values and spirituality are too important to me to treat as a dumb black box.

 

[Lark]

Oh, definitely. It would be silly to follow only one religion exclusively.

I dont think it would be silly, no matter how much you may consider yourself to be following all faiths in reality you're going to be closer to one than any other.

 

[Lark]

You are doing it again.

You should expect me to be right about things by now.

 

[Coriolis]

You should expect me to be right about things by now.

I should, and it is rather disappointing that here you are not, especially because you have made sound contributions on many threads, and I often agree with your perspective.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Is the opinion that morality can only exist within a religious framework based on an underlying assumption that it has to be connected to a reward/punishment system? If God or karma doesn't reward good acts and punish bad ones, then there can be no motivation for good? I would propose that the reward/punishment motivations replaces the motivation for compassion itself. Moral motivations can exist in conjunction with reward/punishment, but perhaps it is more in spite of it than in conjunction with it? Or maybe it functions as a first step to move people in the direction of moral reasoning.

I would propose that the "reward" for a compassionate act exists within the act itself. It does not need a metaphysical or pragmatic reward when operating on a higher level of moral reasoning. Even if it is forgotten by everyone, even oneself, and unacknowledged socially, and unrewarded with any promise of heaven, a compassionate act still has an infinite value and reward in the exact moment it is offered.

By breaking down a sense of "Us vs. Them" and instead realizing that we are all subject to our environment and genetics, it is possible to let go of a sense of judgment and punishment. The brilliant, successful, wealthy, philanthropist is what humanity looks like when subjected to a certain set of conditions, and the homeless drunk who is mentally ill and abusive is what humanity looks like when subjected to another set of conditions. In this way understanding replaces judgment. There is no one deserving eternal torture and punishment from an all powerful being. There is no person who is inherently "evil" or deserving of destruction. We are all humanity and we are all of infinite intrinsic value regardless of how our lives play out. As a society we can care about the well being of all and create boundaries that protect us from one another, but this can be done with the best interest of each individual and with a sense of compassion and non-judgment.

 

[entropie]

Is the opinion that morality can only exist within a religious framework based on an underlying assumption that it has to be connected to a reward/punishment system? If God or karma doesn't reward good acts and punish bad ones, then there can be no motivation for good? I would propose that the reward/punishment motivations replaces the motivation for compassion itself. Moral motivations can exist in conjunction with reward/punishment, but perhaps it is more in spite of it than in conjunction with it? Or maybe it functions as a first step to move people in the direction of moral reasoning.

I would propose that the "reward" for a compassionate act exists within the act itself. It does not need a metaphysical or pragmatic reward when operating on a higher level of moral reasoning. Even if it is forgotten by everyone, even oneself, and unacknowledged socially, and unrewarded with any promise of heaven, a compassionate act still has an infinite value and reward in the exact moment it is offered.

By breaking down a sense of "Us vs. Them" and instead realizing that we are all subject to our environment and genetics, it is possible to let go of a sense of judgment and punishment. The brilliant, successful, wealthy, philanthropist is what humanity looks like when subjected to a certain set of conditions, and the homeless drunk who is mentally ill and abusive is what humanity looks like when subjected to another set of conditions. In this way understanding replaces judgment. There is no one deserving eternal torture and punishment from an all powerful being. There is no person who is inherently "evil" or deserving of destruction. We are all humanity and we are all of infinite intrinsic value regardless of how our lives play out. As a society we can care about the well being of all and create boundaries that protect us from one another, but this can be done with the best interest of each individual and with a sense of compassion and non-judgment.

Very advanced way of thinking. Far ahead of current humanity I fear tho

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

I enjoy masturbation too much.

 

[Coriolis]

I would propose that the reward/punishment motivations replaces the motivation for compassion itself. Moral motivations can exist in conjunction with reward/punishment, but perhaps it is more in spite of it than in conjunction with it? Or maybe it functions as a first step to move people in the direction of moral reasoning.

Doing something to avoid punishment or to gain a reward is one of the lowest forms of motivation. Pleasing someone one cares about (parent, teacher, God) is a bit higher, but still externally driven. Making life run more smoothly is a common motivation for basic civility and courtesy. I often act in such a way as to make the world the kind of place I want to live in, I suppose this is another way of saying to promote my values.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Doing something to avoid punishment or to gain a reward is one of the lowest forms of motivation. Pleasing someone one cares about (parent, teacher, God) is a bit higher, but still externally driven. Making life run more smoothly is a common motivation for basic civility and courtesy. I often act in such a way as to make the world the kind of place I want to live in, I suppose this is another way of saying to promote my values.

That is true that concepts of morality are also connected to relational motivations as well as the reward/punishment - in varying degrees depending on the religion and the individual interpretation of the religion. That also tends to occur on two levels - the theological level of obeying and having a relationship with god and then the social level of relationships and punishment/reward for staying in line with the requirements of the social group.

I spent well over three decades inside religion - all my social interaction, my family, even my employment and education for many of those years centered around religion. This was not just immersion, but continual study of this core religion as well as comparisons with other religions. I'm still what could be called a somewhat closet agnostic/atheist because repercussions would be problematic. I spent so many years studying religion and defending it as well, but there were certain aspects I could not see until I became an outsider.

If you have spent your life inside and have never experienced religion as an "apostate", there is one level that can be impossible to see. On the inside there is the compassion of Jesus and the hope of eternal peace with loved ones which requires a process of deep grieving to let go of. There are also anxieties about eternal punishments and how that effects the way specific people/sinners are viewed, judged, and valued in the present concrete world. The way the "lost", the "backsliders", and "apostates" are viewed is with great distrust. The assumption that you cannot be moral outside the religion, or that you are not "born again", or even "alive in Christ" makes you something less than fully human.

People who have loved and trusted you all their life are torn between the requirements of theology for how you must be viewed, and their own personal history of love and trust for you. It is difficult to reconcile without forcing the outsider into the box of "rebellion" or "distraction with the cares of the world". If you are conscientious and only desire peace within oneself and with others, you make no sense as an outsider to religion. You must be horrible things and you will be called those horrible things by people on the inside. Some will do it out of certainty and others out of confusion. And in religions where you are viewed to be destined to be tormented forever and yet are expected to not be offended by that in any way, but to make every allowance for that belief and not reciprocate with any negativity, the potential for a healthy relationship is ruined. It would be a rare atheist/agnostic who would ever see a believer of any system as deserving of such a horrific fate. They might be rude and make fun or even be downright mean, but they would never cross that line.

I would not personally want to take someone away from their religion because people are too complex and it is too deeply intertwined and it takes too much effort and even grief to let go. That makes it a personal choice that comes from inside which should be respected. I would never impose that on someone, but I would ask each person inside a religion to respond to those outside based on your model of compassion who for Christianity is Christ, an advocate for humanity and not a punisher.

 

[redacted]

That is true that concepts of morality are also connected to relational motivations as well as the reward/punishment - in varying degrees depending on the religion and the individual interpretation of the religion. That also tends to occur on two levels - the theological level of obeying and having a relationship with god and then the social level of relationships and punishment/reward for staying in line with the requirements of the social group.

I spent well over three decades inside religion - all my social interaction, my family, even my employment and education for many of those years centered around religion. This was not just immersion, but continual study of this core religion as well as comparisons with other religions. I'm still what could be called a somewhat closet agnostic/atheist because repercussions would be problematic. I spent so many years studying religion and defending it as well, but there were certain aspects I could not see until I became an outsider.

If you have spent your life inside and have never experienced religion as an "apostate", there is one level that can be impossible to see. On the inside there is the compassion of Jesus and the hope of eternal peace with loved ones which requires a process of deep grieving to let go of. There are also anxieties about eternal punishments and how that effects the way specific people/sinners are viewed, judged, and valued in the present concrete world. The way the "lost", the "backsliders", and "apostates" are viewed is with great distrust. The assumption that you cannot be moral outside the religion, or that you are not "born again", or even "alive in Christ" makes you something less than fully human.

People who have loved and trusted you all their life are torn between the requirements of theology for how you must be viewed, and their own personal history of love and trust for you. It is difficult to reconcile without forcing the outsider into the box of "rebellion" or "distraction with the cares of the world". If you are conscientious and only desire peace within oneself and with others, you make no sense as an outsider to religion. You must be horrible things and you will be called those horrible things by people on the inside. Some will do it out of certainty and others out of confusion. And in religions where you are viewed to be destined to be tormented forever and yet are expected to not be offended by that in any way, but to make every allowance for that belief and not reciprocate with any negativity, the potential for a healthy relationship is ruined. It would be a rare atheist/agnostic who would ever see a believer of any system as deserving of such a horrific fate. They might be rude and make fun or even be downright mean, but they would never cross that line.

I would not personally want to take someone away from their religion because people are too complex and it is too deeply intertwined and it takes too much effort and even grief to let go. That makes it a personal choice that comes from inside which should be respected. I would never impose that on someone, but I would ask each person inside a religion to respond to those outside based on your model of compassion who for Christianity is Christ, an advocate for humanity and not a punisher.

Incredibly well said.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I am honestly somewhat nervous about morality based on divine authority. To me it sounds flimsy and weak. It is the same as doing something because your parents told you to, or because fearless leader told you to. I often wonder about people who follow such a moral code, would they become immoral if they lost their faith in God? I know I have a moral code that I formed without ever believing in God, so it makes no difference to me. But for them, God is the bottom line, can they be moral without it?

When I've heard it asked how someone can have morality without God, I've thought that it was a much bigger point about them than it was about atheists. They implied that they couldn't figure out how or why to have morals without God, and that frightens me. To actually answer that question myself, it's hard not to throw my hands up in incredulity. All around are people who can feel pleasure and pain, and there are physical structures which are deeply fascinating and beautiful, and right there is someone asking me how I could have a code against violence and destruction without believing in some big man up in the astral plane. It makes no sense to me.

 

[Beargryllz]

When I've heard it asked how someone can have morality without God, I've thought that it was a much bigger point about them than it was about atheists. They implied that they couldn't figure out how or why to have morals without God, and that frightens me.

I feel the same way

 

[Lark]

I spent well over three decades inside religion - all my social interaction, my family, even my employment and education for many of those years centered around religion. This was not just immersion, but continual study of this core religion as well as comparisons with other religions.

I am jealous.