7 Pillars for Atheists to Live By

Pretty useless, since we don’t need something shown to us to reaffirm our position like the religious do.
Also, I would say this is more humanism than atheism.

Oh gawd people, don’t you understand…

WE KNOW we don’t need rules or guidelines….

BUT THEY DON’T. This is not for US… it’s for THEM! That way they can understand our general beliefs better and I think it does a great job.

“As for “DO NO HARM”, it means “DO NO INTENTIONAL HARM”

Sheesh!

Anywho, I would make one change however…

I really need something in there about coveting my neighbors ass… He seems really shy and I think I could get to it if I told him it was part of my person beliefs that I must covet his ass… :-p

These also overlap quite a bit with Unitarian Universalists’ principles, which I don’t see as a problem, they’re just not unique . . .

Hi all.

@Friendlyatheist: Thanks for connecting.

@everyone else: I would certainly not ever presume to speak for all atheists. The excercise was useful for me being *new* to atheism. Also, as TheHallowPrince pointed out, it doesn’t hurt to communicate what we believe so that theists don’t get the idea (which they often do) that we are all amoral/immoral. Also, I *did* say right in the post that this was based on secular humanism.

I know it’s far from perfect (could something like this ever be?), but at least it conveys something more to the world than just “I don’t believe in god”.

oh, and to hoverFrog: I’ll make the next one green. 😉

Peace!

Questions:

i. The Golden rule is from religious writings, is it not?

ii. Because science can’t prove it exists, right? What about the unexplained scientific phenomenon throughout history?

iii. Where does the sense of morality come from? Why not simply be a selfish hedonist? Most laws were founded in religion, right?

iv. Wouldn’t this make religion a viability – as it seeks for truth, clarity, and understanding personally as well as theistically?

v. How did we get the ability to be awed and inspired by anything? Can one be awed and inspired by nature, humanity, discovery, and science because they reflect a god/creator?

vi. Again morality? Is it becuase it’s reasonable, or because it’s intrinsic in our minds, or genetics? Isn’t this concept rooted in religious dogmatic belief?

vii. Can we live any other life?

D Rho – holy loaded questions, batman!

i. The golden rule can be seen in religious writings, but that doesn’t indicate its origin. The principle can be reached through many means, as it is not terribly complex.

ii. What about them? There was a time when we couldn’t explain the sun or the moon, too. Even today, we don’t know a number of things, but at least we admit it. But because something is unknown does not mean it is unknowable.

iii. Enter philosophy and ethics. Created by man, just like god was. Most ethics (as applied by law) are reached by a consensus. If the majority of us think something is a good idea, we generally abide by it (or try to).

iv. Last I checked, religion has anything but a monopoly on harmony or peace of mind.

v. If they believe in a god. I’m often inspired by mankind’s genius, and I don’t see any scientific theories printed in religious texts.

vi. None of the above. We’ll go with reason: humans are a social creature. To make human society possible, there are a few things we’re going to have to do to get along. For the most part, we succeed. But when we fail, we fail big (read: war, genocide, etc.).

vii. I believe this is in reference to living for an afterlife while ignoring the human suffering (which can be lessened) here on earth–or, living irresponsibly and licentiously because, hey, you’re saved and going to heaven, so to hell with it!

At least, that’s how I took it.

Anyone ever heard of the “Platinum Rule”? It’s something my husband learned in counseling psych, it goes “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.”

Now logic police, please, settle down, they just bring it up to prove a point and don’t believe in it 100% or in a religious way. So don’t go saying dumb shit like “oh well what if someone wants you to steal something for them” or whatever.

The point is just to show that cultures are all different. So if you went around flatly applying the Golden Rule – doing to others what you would want – you are at the risk of treating everyone like you, which may not be appropriate since a lot of people are not like you.

You could see how a Christian believing in the Golden Rule would go around treating everyone as if they are, or should be, a Christian rather than respecting their different cultures and beliefs (which is exactly what most of them do). Or when white people don’t know a better way to deal with racism so they try to be “color-blind” and treat everyone like they are the same and ignore any differences – which if you apply the Golden Rule really means you are treating everyone like they’re white, like you. When of course treating everyone with the same level of respect is what is important, not pretending like we’re all the same and have had the same experiences.

So it’s just designed for a more contemporary, global community where diversity is a big issue, and it’s especially important for psychiatrists so they don’t go around imposing their own views on other people.

And again they don’t really put faith in it, they just bring it up to point out the flaws in traditional ethnocentric thinking and to segue into the deeper discussions.

D Rho,
I’m going to take the chance that your questions are genuinely curious rather than rhetorical. I mean no offence, but I have seen these exact questions posed by people who have absolutely no interest in anyone’s answers and responding to them turned out to be a futile waste of time. On the other hand I have also enjoyed discussing them with people who sincerely want to understand others’ points of view. So in the interest of promoting understanding I’ll respond with my opinions:

i. The Golden rule is from religious writings, is it not?

While some clerics and religious historians have tried to claim that their favorite religion has the “author” of the Golden Rule and that others borrowed it, from what I can find it seems to have appeared in far flung cultures world-wide at times when there was no communication between these cultures. It seems to be related to the Law of reciprocity as well as the natural trait in humans we call empathy. I would say that it is probably adopted by religions from the culture surrounding them rather than the other way around.

However, even if it was an original idea by a specific religion, so what? There is nothing in a humanistic or atheist way of thinking that precludes borrowing a good idea anywhere it is found. Adopting an ethical principle from a religion does not require agreement with all the other beliefs in that religion.

ii. Because science can’t prove it exists, right? What about the unexplained scientific phenomenon throughout history?

Your question may be coming from the misconception that “no belief in gods” is the same as “belief that there are no gods.” These are completely different. Most atheists do not work hard at believing in the absence of gods, they simply refrain from believing in gods or anything else for that matter, as long as there is an absence of acceptable evidence.

As for “unexplained scientific phenomenon throughout history” I don’t understand what you mean by “scientific phenomenon.” If you are referring to the “gods, mysticism or the supernatural” mentioned in number ii, these are things human beings tend to be interested in. “Science” does not come in trying to disprove these things. Instead, people who practice the good habit of skepticism patiently wait for others who make claims about such things to bring forth their credible evidence. They’re still waiting. The fact that science cannot disprove a claim that is, by the definition offered by its proponents beyond the reach of science, does not then necessarily mean that the claim must be valid.

iii. Where does the sense of morality come from? Why not simply be a selfish hedonist? Most laws were founded in religion, right?

Empathy, socialization, the law of reciprocity, and possibly inherited traits from groups that succeeded in surviving because they had these tendencies. Because most of the individuals had these traits, their group was more cohesive, cooperative and well functioning and so survived, while groups that did not have these traits perished. Contrary to certain bigots who don’t bother to actually investigate, groups and individuals who do not have belief in gods generally do not degrade into selfish hedonism. They still retain their inborn traits for social cooperation. As for laws, while some come directly from specific religious traditions, as with the Golden rule, most laws deal with principles that seem to be universal or at least common among most cultures, regardless of the religion or its power over the culture. Again, as in my answer in question i, even if a good law comes from a specific religion, so what? If it works for the society as a whole, they will sustain it. If it doesn’t they will eventually rescind it. It is not necessary for a society to be grounded in religion for it to be a lawful society, any more than is it necessary for an individual to be religious in any way for him to live ethically and morally.

iv. Wouldn’t this make religion a viability – as it seeks for truth, clarity, and understanding personally as well as theistically?

People get their sense of clarity, truth and understanding from many sources, not just one, and they all have differing definitions of what those terms mean. If you get yours from your religion and it works for you, that is fine with me. But it is a mistake to assume that it is the only source that works for people or to attempt to force one single version of these things on others. Regardless of one’s stand on religion, I think it is an admirable goal for anyone to keep seeking these things.

v. How did we get the ability to be awed and inspired by anything? Can one be awed and inspired by nature, humanity, discovery, and science because they reflect a god/creator?

As with morality, I think these are natural traits. They are part of our natural curiosity and they drive us to investigate, which while sometimes can be risky in the short term, often leads to benefit in the longer term. One can be awed and inspired by these things if they think they are reflections of a god/creator, or if the don’t think that. You and I are living proof of that diversity.

vi. Again morality? Is it becuase it’s reasonable, or because it’s intrinsic in our minds, or genetics? Isn’t this concept rooted in religious dogmatic belief?

See my answers to questions i and iii.

It is arrogant of religions to try to claim that they or their deities are the one and only source of morality. Since they spend a great deal of time declaring the falsity of each other, they contradict themselves since they all have very similar moral codes. This claim is also shown as false by highly moral individuals, groups, communities and societies that function just fine without religion.

vii. Can we live any other life?

No, we can’t. I think the author here is trying to emphasize living by these guidelines in the here and now for the here and now, rather than basing one’s life on the anticipation of some kind of afterlife, or following such guidelines only because that would produce a better result in an afterlife.

I was curious about the inclusion of the Golden Rule. I mean, I certainly won’t complain if Atheists adopt it, hey, good on you all if you do. But I am wondering, on what basis do you adopt it? Do you see it as stemming from evolutionary principles? Is it intrisic to Atheist belief? Or is this adoption somewhat arbitary? Just something that sounds good?

Part of the reason I ask is, well, it seems to me that there are many Atheists who explicitly reject the Golden Rule. Particularly when it comes to things like respect of others who believe differently. Some Atheists (quite understandably) protest loudly when their system of belief is aggressively attacked by fundamentalists who have forgotten the Golden Rule themselves, yet feel quite justified in demeaning others for holding contrary beliefs. This is ethical asymmetry is hardly “do as you would be done by”. Now of course there are Atheists who do practice the Golden Rule and I take my hat off to you. But given this diversity of opinion, how can it be said to be a “pillar” of Atheist belief? That is what puzzles me.

I suppose what I am asking is, just how do you derive ethics? I can understand how Nietzsche came to his “will to power”. But I am unclear how you come to the Golden Rule.

I suppose I would similarly question “do no harm”. Why? Does not evolution imply that it is not only impossible, but not necessarily even a virtue? How for instance does the selfish gene imply do no harm? Is not harm, even intentional harm, sometimes evolutionary advantageous?

Evolution, as a process, doesn’t imply anything about morals. The Universe, so far as I know, is a-moral. We decide to have morals, and what they are. We clearly have the ability to deny our basest desires to some degree. Of all our behaviors that may be beneficial to survival, the fact that some of them are positive and life-affirming, and some otherwise, and that we have chosen among them those that are moral and those that are immoral, indicates that we make morality and virtue what it is. Whenever possible it is a good policy to do no harm, don’t you think?

“But this is entirely my question, if the universe is a-moral, if morality is whatever we decide it to be, doesn’t that make morality somewhat arbitary?

If morality is arbitary, how can the Golden Rule be a “pillar” for Atheism?”

—-

Matt Stone – Wow, farewell, great subject of philosophy. We’ll miss you! /sarcasm

To answer your first question: in terms of the universe at large, yes, it’s completely arbitrary. As a supporting function of civil society and (since humans are social creatures) survival/propagation of the species, it is key. So no, in evolutionary terms I don’t think it’s arbitrary at all, especially not when we have man-made weaponry powerful enough to drive us into extinction. As a response to recognizing the such dangers, a moral code might say,”use it in only the most extreme of circumstances or don’t use it at all” whereas an amoral stance might be fatalistic: do it and whatever happens, happens.

Understand that I use the term “moral” in a general sense, since it’s the most goddam subjective word in the English language. As for being a pillar to atheism, no, it’s really not. But I think it is a pillar of modern, civil society.

I agree with postsimian. A good argument can be made for the golden rule. To favor one morality over another, based upon a rationale, is not arbitrary, unless you are a complete determinist, and nothing is meaningful to you.

But, I do agree that moralities differ and change based upon necessities and desires and enlightenment. For instance, if you were to ask your average American if they believe in the golden rule, or if they try to live by it, how many would give lip service to it? Then, look at our position in the world today and ask yourself “Are we living by the golden rule?” How many Americans are railing against their government for violation of this moral “pillar?”

Furthermore, if you were to ask your average American which is more precious, oil or human life, I think most would say the latter. And yet, how many of us will avoid making such a comparison, and instead continue to substitute WMD, or Saddam Hussein, or Liberty, or Democracy in the place of oil, when the prices go down at the pump and our economy comes out of its slump? Will George Bush be remembered as a visionary President in time to come, if the Middle East transforms itself into a Liberal Paradise? Will all his sins against morality be forgiven?

We are poised to celebrate our Fourth of July at a time when it may be argued we are repudiating it’s meaning. Are we moral?

There is no agreement on what is moral. How many would put greater value on material possessions than on human life? One of our Americans from Texas decided to kill two people to save some ‘stuff.’ His fellow Texans agreed with him. Are Texans moral? How much do you want to bet that this guy is a good Christian?

I’m just commenting because Richard makes great comments, and I don’t want to miss any others appearing here. In other words, I am subscribing to this thread. If anyone knows a way to subscribe without actually making a comment, please let me know.

I feel bad making a comment with no real content besides some praise (mixed with an ulterior motive) so here’s an oft repeated quote I like regarding atheism as a belief:

Atheism is a belief, like bald is a hair color.

(Just to be clear, I only capitalized “atheism” because it was the first word of a sentence. I wish some atheists would stop capitalizing it because it lends a kind of subliminal support to the whole “atheism is just another religion” idea. Would you capitalize “theism”? Actually, I don’t think “theism” is a religion either. Just as “vegetarianism” isn’t a carrot. 😉 )

One more thing, just to defuse any risk of yet another “atheism defined” thread, everyone should read all of this:
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/overview.htm

Wow!

How did I miss this fascinating discussion until now…

My brain is throbbing (but it’s good pain).

Jut a few comments “without much content”… 😉

40 Year Old Atheist (Mark): I rather like your diagram. Very similar to my own beliefs. Except for the Golden rule thing. It does not always apply, as what I like done onto me is not necessarily what others desire. But I do believe that another version of the Golden rule often (always?) applies in humanity: “The one who has the gold makes the rules.” 😆

D Rho: Please be careful about referring to any group of people as holding the same beliefs. You make some great points, though.

Matt: I love the way you think, question, and explore possibilities.

Richard Wade: You’re the man! How do you express your ideas so well?

Other than that, I’m not smart enough to articulate my jumbled thoughts…
But NYCatheist, YOU are! You are here way too seldom.

To D Rho (Hope you’re still there)

3. Medical journals are full of unexplainable healings… Studies have shown that prayer actually works in achieving a peaceful state, and actually incurs a healthier outcome in the sick… Countless reports of NDE’s (near death experiences)… I have known people who have been in fatal sitiuations and have not received a scratch… observatories who have seen things in the skies… the beauty and harmony of the chaos theory… ? Do you mean to say that these are to be ignored until they are followed up with scientific evidence – that seems pretty passive to me.

I wouldn’t use the term “unexplainable.” It implies that something will never be explained, and never is a word sure to eventually embarrass the person who utters it. I’d rather say “unexplained.” That term implies “as yet.” When something unexpected happens some people are eager to rush in and “explain” it with their own favorite rubber stamp explanation, such as “It’s gotta be that God did it,” or “It’s gotta be natural.” They don’t have the patience or humility to let it remain unexplained for the time being while we look closely.

Medical and scientific journals are also full of accounts for things that were once unexplained but are now understood in simple, straight forward ways. I just met a neurologist who is doing research on the brain activities of people who alter their mental states with prayer, meditation or other methods by scanning their brains before, during and after using those methods. He found that praying produced identical peaceful states as did simply counting one’s breaths from one to ten.

I’m not saying that these things are to be ignored until they are followed up with scientific evidence. Certainly they should be wondered about and pondered over. But “explaining” them with a pat answer that massages the mind dismisses the issue and often no further investigation moves forward. It is arrogant and foolish to hastily toss around one’s favorite response, whether natural or supernatural for the as yet unexplained. It isn’t being passive to let something be unexplained during investigation, it’s being conscientious.

The universe is full of things we find beautiful, mysterious and wonderful. Those emotional responses are in us. They are our creation. Beauty, wonder and mystery are in the eye of the beholder. If they were qualities that are intrinsically embedded into the things we see, (such as by a creator) then our responses to them would be universally consistent. But they are not. What is beautiful to one person is plain or even ugly to another. What is mysterious to one person is obvious to another. What is wondrous to one person is mundane to another.

So to invoke the beauty, mystery and wonder we see in the world is not necessarily a testament to whatever created it to be like that, as much as a celebration of that ability in ourselves.

What is beautiful to one person is plain or even ugly to another. What is mysterious to one person is obvious to another. What is wondrous to one person is mundane to another.

That is absolutely true.

If they were qualities that are intrinsically embedded into the things we see, (such as by a creator) then our responses to them would be universally consistent.

I disagree. I want to investigate the possible (probable) purpose in diversity. We can design a watch to tell time, a compass to give us diretion, and a thermometer to measure(?) the temperature. They all serve different functions. They are each wired (designed) differently by the creator (us) to collectively serve a greater purpose.

My argument is not for creation, by the way. I’m just addressing your argument against it. 😉

Richard,

For what it’s worth, I read your comments and enjoyed them. I’d also like to hear Rho’s thoughts on what you wrote, if he’s still out there.

Linda,

Re: your reply to Richard, which part do you disagree with? Do you mean you think qualities like beauty are intrinsic in objects?

Re: the video, there must be a video with a smart theist and a dumb atheist. It’s your mission to find it! 😉

NYCathiest,

Re: your reply to Richard, which part do you disagree with? Do you mean you think qualities like beauty are intrinsic in objects?

I guess I did not make myself clear. Let me try it again…

I was just pointing out that perhaps the embedding by the creator is not in the thing that is observed but how the observers are wired differently. What is intrinsic may not be the beauty but the perception of beauty.

But the perception of beauty, that experience the first person has when looking at painting A, and the experience the second person has when looking at painting B, are the same. (I’m not sure I agree, but is that what you mean?)

Closer, but still not quite. The way we perceive the paintings may be quite different. You could look at individual objects in the painting, the colors, and the layout to call it beautiful. I could look at the mood the painting portrays, the emotions that it triggers, and the patterns I see within the painting and call it beautiful. That’s what I mean by the difference in perception. We could arrive at the same conclusion but still have two completely different ways of perceiving. That is what is intrinsic. And yes, neither is right or wrong.

I am a theist, but I disagree with the theistic model that you describe. I don’t think God created universal qualities like goodness and beauty. I think they were created by humans, such as religious leaders or the societal norm. The only things that come to mind that are universal which I attribute to God are… life, grace, and love. The very things that I don’t think humans are capable of creating for ourselves.