An Atheist Code

Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
An Atheist Code

Atheists are immoral.  Religion is the source of morality, for without the threat of punishment and the hope of reward, no man can be trusted to behave morally.  If one goes so far as to deny God, one must inherently turn away from goodness as well.

It's a common argument against atheism, and it's bullshit.  For one thing, if we're right then morality springs from an entirely human source.  For another thing, religion cannot be said to induce morality in its adherents, as demonstrated in every time and place throughout human history.  I'm not such a big fan of these counterpoints, though.  They chip away at the alleged monopoly of religious morality, and quite understandably so.  Those of us who are outraged by the lies and exaggerated claims of theology are in the habit of tearing down those claims, but we seem to give little thought to what comes next.

Without a sacred book, we are left to our own devices and judgement on all matters. We have no one to hand down our beliefs or practices from on high, and we rather like it that way.  How often, though, do we turn our view inwards, once we have declared ourselves unbelievers?

It is hard to break down morality, to disassemble it, prod it and examine it from every conceivable angle, and put it back together again (I'm not sure whether having parts left over is a good thing or not).

It begins where most things do: at the smallest involved scale. Why should I be moral? Why should I strive to promote happiness in those around me? Why should I consider that struggle to be "good"?  One quickly arrives at an enlightened self interest view of morality.  I promote happiness in those around me because that increases my chances of being happy, of surviving and prospering.  It would be very hard to lead a happy life if one's presence was cause for dread and scorn.

Drat, I've lost my train of thought.  What say you, skeptics?

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
You can pick and choose

You can pick and choose whatever morality you want from any religious text. I personally find little moral value in the bible and probably even less from the quran, but if that's the only source that keeps theists from murdering and stealing then I guess it has some societal value. Evolutionary psychology holds many of the keys to understanding why humans appear to have some rudimentary moral compass, but many species in the animal kingdom exhibit "moral" behavior so it isn't necessarily a human trait.

Morality involves much more than not killing or stealing. The golden rule of love your neighbor isn't even really a moral teaching, but most main stream religions thrive on brotherly love of one type or another. If someone's family were starving and the only source of food had to be taken by staeling of force would it be immoral to steal to prevent the death of your family? I know this arguement has been rehatched a million times, but it's only because absolute morality DOES NOT EXIST in the real world.

Sometimes extraordinary events take place that go beyond the normal scope of what one might view as a moral choice. Moral dilemmas such as the Terry Shiavo case are not dichotomies involving one positive and one negative outcome. Dilemmas are the products of two negative outcomes and determing which one will have the least negative impact on society. Nowhere in the bible is there a foolproof answer to such an example of real life human drama. If there is a god that wrote a magical book it did a lousy job of providing mankind with omni-scient wisdom to prevent the tragedy this family had to go through.

I think your answer builds upon the view of human morality most of us share. I don't go around murdering innocent people because the bible says I shouldn't. Everyone is a father, mother, brother etc... and taking the life of someone affects more than just the person killed, but a small segment of society. I just find the term morality is so overplayed by theists, as if it's something you can easily define and is so apparent what is a moral action or what isn't. At one time it was forbidden to plow a field with a donkey and an ox. I can't understand why this was ever an issue in the first place but god said not to...... so the jews didn't.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Support life. This could be

Support life. This could be one of main points in the moral code. I mean, if we have some great criminal, war criminal for example, such a man shouldn't be lynched, probably not even executed.
A fair court trial isn't for the criminal, it is for the society itself, to realize, that we still didn't become a bloodthirsty, lynching crowd, but that we stay a civilized people, who can forgive, after a threat is prevented. The moral awareness of society is more important, than the one criminal.

Human civilization is a very specific life style, and as such, there are certain principles ideal for such a living. People intuitively feel, that brotherhood, equality, freedom and justice are good for their society. The more of such principles are physically realized in a society, the longer it lasts. Of course, those which involves them only as an empty ideals, and the country is held together by force, lasts too, but ends up in decay from within.
In America, there's a lot of freedom, Land of freedom it's called, but some people's freedom stomps over the freedom of others, so there's very little of justice. In Soviet Union there was a lot of justice, everywhere, and people couldn't even whisper as they wanted, in fear of the justice. Thus there was very little of freedom.
When there will be a society in the world, with both freedom and justice, it won't be called utopia, it will be the permanently sustainable society, the equilibrium we're seeking for ages.
There was a lot of beautiful moral ideals in last centuries, but none of them made the world any better. Something was missing - practical realization. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
I am fundamentally opposed

I am fundamentally opposed to this idea of creating an "Atheist Code". One of the big selling points of Atheism is that it is not a unified belief structure. All Atheism consists of is not believing in God, once you go down this path all of the evil that has been done in the name of religion can now be done in the name of Atheism as Atheism now means something other than the lack of a belief.

After all, what happens when someone disagrees with your Atheist Cide? Is this a Sectarian Split? What is your code? If it is the highest law, does it not become the Gospel? If one sect decides something is immoral, gains power over another sect that doesn't, and punishes that sect, is this religious persecution? Who will tell people about this code? Do they not become the Clergy of the 'Church of Atheism?'

I mean seriously, didn't anyone PAY ATTENTION to that bloody South Park Episode?

Atheists already have a code, sort of. Because since Atheism says nothing about how you should live or die, it gives people the freedom to also belong to other philosophies such as Secular Humanism or Ethical Culture or what have you.

My response to people who say I can't get my morals from Atheism because there's no god I respond, "You're not really attacking Atheism here because I don't get any morals from Atheism, I get them from Secular Humanism, Compassion, and Common Sense, so fight your war against them instead."

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Jello
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
There is sort of an atheist

There is sort of an atheist code already, and it's "don't believe in God". Any atheists caught believing in God will be beaten severely by a horseless headman

Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first.


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I am fundamentally

Quote:
I am fundamentally opposed to this idea of creating an "Atheist Code".

 

Yes, I agree. But I have no problem with Atheism adopting a general moral platform or statement. Such action may contribute to the notion or acknowledge that Atheists are a group... but I think by and large this is already the case.

 

Quote:
It is hard to break down morality, to disassemble it, prod it and examine it from every conceivable angle, and put it back together again (I'm not sure whether having parts left over is a good thing or not).

 

If we are speaking of breaking down christian/religious morality, well.... I don't think they have all the parts to begin with and additionally some of their pieces appear defective and never have fit. I cannot see where a unified Atheistic platform on morality would be less valuable or less rational.

 

Quote:
How often, though, do we turn our view inwards, once we have declared ourselves unbelievers?

 

Being "left to our own" judgment, on all matters, is partly what Atheism is  about. I place no positive value in many, if not most of the christian bible's alleged teachings because in my mind and through my experience, so very many of them are poor if not horrendous.

As one example, loosely based on the quote above: Proverbs 3:5, which states, "Trust in the lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding". 

I opine, that this verse is possibly one of the very worst ideas in any holy book. Understanding ourselves is extremely necessary, especially in a world driven by competition for survival. Certainly, that's not the only reason it doesn't work but I won't rattle on with an endless slew of reasons here.

 

Quote:
It begins where most things do: at the smallest involved scale. Why should I be moral? Why should I strive to promote happiness in those around me? Why should I consider that struggle to be "good"?  One quickly arrives at an enlightened self interest view of morality.  I promote happiness in those around me because that increases my chances of being happy, of surviving and prospering.  It would be very hard to lead a happy life if one's presence was cause for dread and scorn.

 

Yes! This is as it should be. In fact, if most Atheists individually reach these conclusions, then it can be stated that Atheism, by and large, has an informal, somewhat unspoken platform or basis for positive moral behavior.

Having said this however, I would replace the word happiness/happy with contentment/content. Sadly, very, very sadly, one of the things we have been "sold" by religion and general society as well is the idea that the ultimate goal of human life should be personal happiness. I agree the feeling of being happy may not be all that removed from the feeling of contentment, but I feel the latter is a better goal, especially if we are discussing the probabilities of actually achieving societal success.

 

Quote:
Evolutionary psychology holds many of the keys to understanding why humans appear to have some rudimentary moral compass, but many species in the animal kingdom exhibit "moral" behavior so it isn't necessarily a human trait.

 

Precisely why I have always thought that a form of morality pre-dates the arrival of mankind.

 

Quote:
If someone's family were starving and the only source of food had to be taken by staeling of force would it be immoral to steal to prevent the death of your family? I know this arguement has been rehatched a million times, but it's only because absolute morality DOES NOT EXIST in the real world.

 

Life itself seems inseparable from competition. Until such time as we discover otherwise, it appears to me to be highly foolish to assume an absolute morality could ever be achieved. Since competition rules the day, we must always be prepared to make the tough decisions even when faced with dire consequences of our actions. Not very palatable for some, but it's where we as humans are currently stationed.

 

 

 

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Wonko wrote:Quote:I am

Wonko wrote:

Quote:
I am fundamentally opposed to this idea of creating an "Atheist Code".

Yes, I agree. But I have no problem with Atheism adopting a general moral platform or statement. Such action may contribute to the notion or acknowledge that Atheists are a group... but I think by and large this is already the case.

Isn't that aligning yourself with a particular moral stance, like nihilism (which all atheists secretly believe) or humanism or the like? Morality is one of those squidgy areas in which atheists fight to the death. In fact, I call a jihad upon all infidel atheists who do not embrace existential pacifistic barbarism as their moral code!

Humanism is for pussies.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Yaerav
Bronze Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote: Humanism

nigelTheBold wrote:
Humanism is for pussies.

Heresy I say! HERESY! Jawdropping!


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Wonko wrote:Life itself

Wonko wrote:

Life itself seems inseparable from competition. Until such time as we discover otherwise, it appears to me to be highly foolish to assume an absolute morality could ever be achieved. Since competition rules the day, we must always be prepared to make the tough decisions even when faced with dire consequences of our actions. Not very palatable for some, but it's where we as humans are currently stationed.

This is not true, I think. The development in nature seems to progress towards a complex ecosystems, where every species there has their place and often cooperates with others. Most amazing areas in nature are arranged in this way, a coral reef, savanna, rainforest, or a coexistence of domesticated animals and humans. Cooperative arrangement also provides the greatest benefit for the most of people. For example, a government with both socialistic and capitalistic methods. Last millenia were characteristic by exaggerated, destructive competition, which becomes now outdated, and people begins to understand the benefit of cooperation. Cooperation is the sign of a sophisticated life.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Yaerav wrote:nigelTheBold

Yaerav wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Humanism is for pussies.

Heresy I say! HERESY! Jawdropping!

Don't make me do a YouTube video. 'Cause I will.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:I am

Sinphanius wrote:
I am fundamentally opposed to this idea of creating an "Atheist Code". One of the big selling points of Atheism is that it is not a unified belief structure. All Atheism consists of is not believing in God, once you go down this path all of the evil that has been done in the name of religion can now be done in the name of Atheism as Atheism now means something other than the lack of a belief. After all, what happens when someone disagrees with your Atheist Cide? Is this a Sectarian Split? What is your code? If it is the highest law, does it not become the Gospel? If one sect decides something is immoral, gains power over another sect that doesn't, and punishes that sect, is this religious persecution? Who will tell people about this code? Do they not become the Clergy of the 'Church of Atheism?' I mean seriously, didn't anyone PAY ATTENTION to that bloody South Park Episode? Atheists already have a code, sort of. Because since Atheism says nothing about how you should live or die, it gives people the freedom to also belong to other philosophies such as Secular Humanism or Ethical Culture or what have you. My response to people who say I can't get my morals from Atheism because there's no god I respond, "You're not really attacking Atheism here because I don't get any morals from Atheism, I get them from Secular Humanism, Compassion, and Common Sense, so fight your war against them instead."

At what point did I imply I thought any of us should attempt to force our morality on anyone else? "An atheist code" says only that it is one code, and that it is held by an atheist. Nothing more.  In fact, I went on to outright say that we should, as individuals, examine our moral compasses, to the point of ripping them apart and building them back up again, to understand them better and decide for ourselves what we believe to be good.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:The

Luminon wrote:

The development in nature seems to progress towards a complex ecosystems, where every species there has their place and often cooperates with others.

 

Just because a community functions as a unit and leans towards cooperative behavior doesn't mean competition has been eradicated. This was my main point. Until such time as competition amongst humans is viewed in a different light, competition will continue to rule the day.

 

Luminon wrote:
Most amazing areas in nature are arranged in this way, a coral reef, savanna, rainforest, or a coexistence of domesticated animals and humans.

 

You are speaking about something completely different here. This is more along the lines of a systems or community ecological discipline wherein many different species (or perhaps just two) can coexist with moderate competition. They form a community, yes, however many living creatures within these "amazing areas" live off of each other, and even, feed off each other, literally. Organisms within these natural areas often seem not to be aware of the consequences of chowing down another to the point of extinction. Indeed, for many years, mankind had no concerns in these areas either. Competition for resources and survival appear very strong, even in those areas where cooperation simultaneously affects the community. 

One might argue that it is only outsiders of the ecosystem that cause disruption to the whole, but again that doesn't remove competition entirely from the equation.

 

Luminon wrote:
Cooperative arrangement also provides the greatest benefit for the most of people.

 

Agreed to a point, but again, cooperation doesn't destroy competition. Among humans, when the chips are down, we compete.

 

Luminon wrote:
For example, a government with both socialistic and capitalistic methods. Last millenia were characteristic by exaggerated, destructive competition, which becomes now outdated, and people begins to understand the benefit of cooperation.

 

To which socialistic-capitalist government are you referring ? Also, in order that I may better understand you, please give me a relatively accurate definition of what you mean by "exaggerated, destructive competition."

 

 


Yaerav
Bronze Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Yaerav

nigelTheBold wrote:

Yaerav wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Humanism is for pussies.

Heresy I say! HERESY! Jawdropping!

Don't make me do a YouTube video. 'Cause I will.

Tsk! I will pray to Erasmus to save your... erm... whatever Erasmus saves Puzzled

(Although I wonder if the reactions to a "Humanists are pussies"-vid would be just as hilarious as those to Cpt Awsome's "Buddhism is evil"-vid : seeing so many Buddhists react so inflamed and spitting out so much bile in the comments made me laugh as well as cringe with shame, being a bit of a "Zen-fan". But would Humanists be just as petty? I have the eery feeling they/we might  )


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Wonko

nigelTheBold wrote:

Wonko wrote:

Quote:
I am fundamentally opposed to this idea of creating an "Atheist Code".

Yes, I agree. But I have no problem with Atheism adopting a general moral platform or statement. Such action may contribute to the notion or acknowledge that Atheists are a group... but I think by and large this is already the case.

Isn't that aligning yourself with a particular moral stance, like nihilism (which all atheists secretly believe) or humanism or the like? Morality is one of those squidgy areas in which atheists fight to the death. In fact, I call a jihad upon all infidel atheists who do not embrace existential pacifistic barbarism as their moral code!

Humanism is for pussies.

I'm not certain that I wish to think that Atheism should have no moral stance.

Also, in my mind, taking a stance in an evidentary way seems akin to science, which itself is constantly evolving. Guess what I mean is, Atheism wouldn't be *locked in*, as many religions are, to a static position.

I have no fear of anything temporal.

On the other hand nigel, I love a good youtube vid.....

 

 

 

 


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
How dare you, you damn dirty

@ nigelTheBold

How dare you, you damn dirty Nihilist Heathen Bastard! I hereby propose to Escommunicate nigelTheBold from the unified Church of Atheism on the grounds of him holding impure Nihilistic thoughts! Laughing out loud

I'm warning you, I've got experience in this having served as the Jesus Christ Figure in my own religion before! A deep Irony that I'm sure I AM GOD AS YOU will love, an Atheist was named the Christ figure in a parody religion centered around a mod of a video game. Smiling

EDIT: @: Kavis

Okay, we have one code that is held by an Atheist. What happens if they decide not to follow it? If something happens to them, even if it's just shunning, then it is religious persecution. If nothing happens, why make the code at all? If all the Code says is 'Figure it Out Yourselves' what good does having a code do at all?

Codes are only useful if you are willing to enforce them, just like you could declare speeding illegal, but if the possibility of being pulled over by a cop isn't there, no one is going to care about it being illegal, because they either will understand there will be no consequences for breaking the law, or wouldn't be breaking the law anyways because they understand the reasoning behind it, namely that it is unsafe.

If you want to make a list of suggestions or rules that are 'more like guidelines really' then that's fine, but its not really a 'code' unless Keith Richards is there to shoot you with a flintlock pistol, and I should stop beating this analogy before it officially becomes a dead horse. Smiling

Savvy?

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Wonko wrote:I'm not certain

Wonko wrote:

I'm not certain that I wish to think that Atheism should have no moral stance.

Also, in my mind, taking a stance in an evidentary way seems akin to science, which itself is constantly evolving. Guess what I mean is, Atheism wouldn't be *locked in*, as many religions are, to a static position.

I have no fear of anything temporal.

On the other hand nigel, I love a good youtube vid.....

I wouldn't say that theistic morality is static, either. It seems to evolve to match the needs of those in power.

I myself am a humanist, more than anything. My code is simple: leave the world a little better place than I found it, and do as little harm to others as possible. Whether this would be backed up by sociological and evolutionary research and evidence really isn't too important to me. This is yet one more area in which I'm most likely irrational.

I would like to see more talk of historical and evolutionary evidence-based morality. It would certainly give the fundies another reason to despise atheist scientists, and there hasn't been enough of that lately. I believe Hamby posted something along those lines a month or two ago, and I really enjoyed both his post, and the few responses it generated.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Wonko

nigelTheBold wrote:

Wonko wrote:

I'm not certain that I wish to think that Atheism should have no moral stance.

Also, in my mind, taking a stance in an evidentary way seems akin to science, which itself is constantly evolving. Guess what I mean is, Atheism wouldn't be *locked in*, as many religions are, to a static position.

I have no fear of anything temporal.

On the other hand nigel, I love a good youtube vid.....

I wouldn't say that theistic morality is static, either. It seems to evolve to match the needs of those in power.

I myself am a humanist, more than anything. My code is simple: leave the world a little better place than I found it, and do as little harm to others as possible. Whether this would be backed up by sociological and evolutionary research and evidence really isn't too important to me. This is yet one more area in which I'm most likely irrational.

I would like to see more talk of historical and evolutionary evidence-based morality. It would certainly give the fundies another reason to despise atheist scientists, and there hasn't been enough of that lately. I believe Hamby posted something along those lines a month or two ago, and I really enjoyed both his post, and the few responses it generated.

I agree that christian morality hasn't exactly been static... but...

In my mind it has changed radically and recently due greatly to the advances of science and the apparent acceptance of some secular and scientific methodology on the part of said christians, regardless of what those in power are attempting to teach, or better still, how tightened their stranglehold. 

One can observe an object in front of oneself and dismiss it as an apparition, should that object disappear at some point. However, it's really hard to continue the denial when, after quite some time, it doesn't go away. The exponential growth of the scientific method, and to a lesser extent philosophy and rational thinking, will only assist the erosion of the poorest religious tenets until, one by one, the poorest of them are gone. The only question I wonder about for society as a whole is whether or not rational thought can ever equally co-exist with emotional thought to the point where we can dismiss the obvious imaginings.

BTW, I don't have a code, per se, but maybe we are just defining or rather finding defintions of words to be different here. I do have a personal statement, which is a little shorter than your code, but they are a bit similar.

Mine is simply: Strive to avoid harming life, endeavour to make a world at peace.

I could admit that's a little schmaltzy, but not overly insincere.

 

 


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Code

Hows this for a code:

TRUTH

 

 


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote: EDIT: @:

Sinphanius wrote:
Smiling EDIT: @: Kavis Okay, we have one code that is held by an Atheist. What happens if they decide not to follow it? If something happens to them, even if it's just shunning, then it is religious persecution. If nothing happens, why make the code at all? If all the Code says is 'Figure it Out Yourselves' what good does having a code do at all? Codes are only useful if you are willing to enforce them, just like you could declare speeding illegal, but if the possibility of being pulled over by a cop isn't there, no one is going to care about it being illegal, because they either will understand there will be no consequences for breaking the law, or wouldn't be breaking the law anyways because they understand the reasoning behind it, namely that it is unsafe. If you want to make a list of suggestions or rules that are 'more like guidelines really' then that's fine, but its not really a 'code' unless Keith Richards is there to shoot you with a flintlock pistol, and I should stop beating this analogy before it officially becomes a dead horse. Smiling Savvy?

We have one code, held by an atheist.  What happens if they decide not to follow it is self-inflicted guilt, rationalization, and perhaps something like cognitive dissonance depending on the specific more they violated.   I don't see what an individual moral code has to do with shunning or religious persecution. You seem to have missed the point that "An Atheist Code", in the title, is mine, and mine alone. 

Again, I don't see why a moral code necessarily involves shunning, religious persecution, or other forms of external negative reinforcement. It's how I decide I want to face the world.  We have laws (which should be informed by morality, but not decree it) to enforce societal stability.

Again, I never said that I should get to proclaim a moral code and force it upon anyone else. I'm not sure why you're objecting to things I never said.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Without a sacred book,

Quote:
Without a sacred book, we are left to our own devices and judgement on all matters.

Fortunately, our own devices include science, and as it turns out, science can answer questions of morality, if only they are asked correctly.  Please read this essay:

What Does Sugar Have To Do With Murder?!

If we want to know how morality came to exist, we need to know why reciprocal altruism came to exist.  Beyond the simple math that demonstrates the superiority of reciprocal altruism to selfishness, we would like to know the mechanics of how it came to exist in the first place.  Just recently, scientists have discovered a piece of evidence:

The Evolutionary Origin of an Altruistic Gene

Quote:
Those of us who are outraged by the lies and exaggerated claims of theology are in the habit of tearing down those claims, but we seem to give little thought to what comes next.

Fortunately, there might be someone already writing a book (hopefully to be published next year) addressing this very issue.

Quote:
It is hard to break down morality, to disassemble it, prod it and examine it from every conceivable angle, and put it back together again (I'm not sure whether having parts left over is a good thing or not).

Science is always harder than faith.  I believe the reward is far greater for putting in the work.

Quote:
I promote happiness in those around me because that increases my chances of being happy, of surviving and prospering.

To be more precise, your genes built you in such a way that you have an instinctual sense of sympathy and empathy for those you consider "your fellow man."  This is because your genes are among those that successfully reproduced, and reciprocal altruism in social creatures is a HUGE survival advantage.  Your sense of right and wrong comes from the very real "conscience" that evolution has instilled in you because it is of great advantage to the genes.  I make the distinction that it's advantageous to the genes because morality is quite often not beneficial for the individual.  If it's the right thing to do to return a very valuable piece of jewelry rather than pawn it and keep the money, it's not because you will be better off for doing so.  It's because natural selection has worked out a system where the genes that survive best are those that build creatures who sometimes put others' needs above their own.

Still, despite the knowledge that some morally good acts will be detrimental to you, you do them anyway.  Regardless of how you justify this in your own mind, the mechanism behind it is the mathematic success of reciprocal altruism in social animals.

Quote:
It would be very hard to lead a happy life if one's presence was cause for dread and scorn.

Reputation is a huge part of society.  Not just ours.  Apes, vampire bats, dolphins, sharks, and tons of other animals are now known to remember the actions of their own kind as well as other species.

I highly suggest that you read this book:

 Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation  

The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation by Matt Ridley (Paperback - April 1, 1998)

It's a great explanation of exactly what morality is, why we have it, and how it functions.

 

As far as An Atheist Code goes, I'm strongly against it.  The beauty of being a freethinker is in being able to decide on your own path.  Morality isn't something that people impose onto society.  It's something that's innate in us as a species.  We're not in danger of descending into anarchy if we don't have a book to follow.  Science has proven again and again that one of the defining features of humanity is that it forms societies, and that societies quite naturally develop cultural codes of conduct, without the need to consult either Hobbes or Holy Books.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:As far as

Hambydammit wrote:

As far as An Atheist Code goes, I'm strongly against it....

We're not in danger of descending into anarchy if we don't have a book to follow.

 

 

I agree, neither a code, nor book are necessary for Atheism to exist.

Nevertheless, for Atheism to actually prosper, avoid stagnation and avoid the anarchy route, however unlikely the dangers, I think a single unifed statement which shows a positive willingness toward the future of humanity and the success of that future is a step in the right direction.

I'm not speaking of a novel, book, page or paragraph (and certainly not cultural codes, which have shown themselves to often be faulty thus needing constant revision throughout history) but rather, simply, a single sentence. One that most Atheists, agnostics and freethinkers would find of solid moral strength.

This in NO way, takes away from freethinking or those who choose to decide on a path that is completely different from anyone and everyone. It wouldn't necessarily make a strong Atheist weak, nor a weak Atheist strong. No one would be forced to "believe" in such a statement, and all would be welcome to rebut with their better idea.

I can envision many highly emotional theists, might be, for perhaps the first time in their lives, able to better understand Atheism. Would it win people over to the shore of rational thinking as opposed to drowning in the ocean of make believe? Or might it have the opposite effect?

Thoughts ????.....

 

 

   

 

 


Yaerav
Bronze Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
Wonko wrote:a single

Wonko wrote:

a single sentence. One that most Atheists, agnostics and freethinkers would find of solid moral strength.(..)

Thoughts ????...

"Don't be Evil"? Eye-wink

 

(But I'll try to come up with a more serious answer later, I promise)


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
@ Kavis: OH! My mistake,

@ Kavis:

OH!

My mistake, sorry about that. When you said "An Atheist Code" I considered it to be 'A Code of the Atheist' meaning a unified philosophy of thought for Atheists, not 'The Code of an Atheist' meaning the personal code of a single person who happens to be an Atheist.

If you are asking for help building a personal code, I wish you luck, and most of the other posters have helped far more than I have and likely would. Sorry about that. What I will give you is my personal code, as I feel all people must arive at their own personal code through their own introspection. This is not to say that a person is able to do no wrong because of 'their code' or that taking parts of your code from others is morally wrong, simply that if you adopt something into your code, it should be because you want it there, not because others want it there.

My code:
*Base all beliefs of evidence or state up front that they are subjective personal beliefs.
*Give everyone a single Chance to prove their value, do not give second chances unless the person in question demonstrates their worthiness of said chance.
*Treat others as they treat you, should one injure you, ensure, to the best of your abilities, that they never have such an opportunity again.
*Make the Game as fun as possible.
*Define your own path.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...