# Being an atheist in SE America... thoughts?



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

Good day Gents,

As many of you may have noticed, I have a close relation to the States due to work, reason why I've been lurking around in posts that aren't really related to style.

I've been offered to be relocated to the States for an undefined period, which is very attractive as I know very well the place I would be going to (NC, north of Charlotte) as I travel very often there. Always for a couple of weeks or a month nonetheless, so there are a lot of other things that yet I have to discover while living.

One of those things that concerns me a great deal is religion, my manager, who is atheist as I am, recommended me to say that I'm catholic or christian, or any other religion, but never that I'm atheist. Is really that bad to be an atheist in America? I don't like the idea to be lying about a decision I made and which took me a great deal of thinking as my family's been catholic for generations. I have my arguments, and I wouldn't share them unless I'm asked for, but lying is something that doesn't suit me.

I've lived in Europe for quite a while, and never had a bad face when asked about my religion, even in Chile, which is a very old-fashioned country in Latin America.

Have any of you had similar experiences in this regard or any advice you could give me? I agree that a gentleman should never talk about religion or politics, but the SE is an area well known for being very religious.

Thanks.


----------



## Dingo McPhee (Aug 13, 2009)

I live in Tennessee. It is possible to live here without ever discussing your religion. I would shoot for a "don't ask, don't tell" strategy. "Atheist" might be regarded in the same vein as "Satan-worshipper" depending on the person.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

No one will care.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Unknowingly perhaps, your morals are probably based on someone else's religion. So go ahead and lie about it, because you don't believe in religion, right?​


----------



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

Moral and values are not necessarily related to any religion. In other words, lying is as incorrect to me than it is to some religious person.

I'm a very good friend of a grown man from Atlanta, he's christian and we've talked long about this topic, and since he's my friend I'm very glad to have this discussions... however, things are different when sitting in a table with people you barely know and where you don't have the time to develop nicely any argument. The easy way should be lying, but again, I don't wanna do that. In that particular situation, do you think I would receive a bad look, or will I be understood?

Once there, I would probably apply for a higher position, which takes me to another question, is religion a common subject on job interviews?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Some Atheists have an ironic inclination to make Martyrs of themselves by pontificating upon the superiority of their non-religion.

The truth is, no one cares!!



Ricardo-CL said:


> , is religion a common subject on job interviews?


It is illegal unless you are applying to a Church or Church based organization.

And it may not be a good idea even then!!

It may be more likely a neighbor or co-worker could invite you to attend their church. (It's polite to do so)

Simply decline without explanation.


----------



## theCardiffGiant (Sep 16, 2007)

People rarely ask explicitly about your religion. Everyone assumes I'm Catholic because my family is Irish, but I'm an atheist. Most people don't care whether you're actively religious, but take it for granted that having a religious background or a traditional/family association with a particular faith makes you more trustworthy, moral, etc.

If you feel it would affect your business and need to talk about religion, you'd be better off saying that you were raised in a given church, but aren't particularly religious, or that you don't belong to an organized church and believe that faith is a personal issue.

With my students I have a stock answer: 'I don't talk about religion or politics.' They have no idea that I'm an atheist and a libertarian, but assume that I'm Catholic and a democrat because of my name and my profession.

It's unfortunate that many religious people hold atheists in such disdain, or hold unfounded fears about us. It would be nice to be able to have meaningful, productive conversations, but there's often such a knee-jerk reaction to the word 'atheist' that all communication is wasted. Still, many of my and my wife's closest friends are Catholics, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians, and religion has never been an issue with us.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

The notion that Americans are all super religious nuts who will at the very least frown upon non-believers is a fairly commonly held view abroad in my experience (as is we're all wealthy, we're all rude, etc.)

In fact, you'll find Americans to be generally very tolerant on questions of religion overall.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> No one will care.


I agree. Or at least only very few will care.

And I would not lie. It is both wrong and unnecessary.

Are you an atheist, or are you an agnostic? The reason I ask is that the few who will care are more likely to be put off by atheism than agnoticism, since the former seems grounded less in pure reason than in some type of irrational hostility. Telling a believer that you don't believe one way or another is likely to be less offensive than telling a believer that you affirmatively believe that he is wrong.

But in any case, Pentheos is right. Unless you wear your atheism on your sleeve such that you are seen as ridiculing or dismissing the earnest beliefs of others, few will care.

Finally, there may be a few people who insist on trying to save your soul. While annoying, please keep in mind they mean you no harm. Their boorish behavior is not grounded in disrespect but out of earnest concern for your spiritual welfare. Try to be gentle with them. Very few will treat you badly or unfairly, but there is always that risk. But that risk is present for all of us, believers or non-believers.


----------



## theCardiffGiant (Sep 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda,

That as a very glib response. The truth is that some people do care. I've witnessed Christians who don't know I'm an atheist express absolute horror and disgust at discovering that someone else was an atheist. Some of those people are in my family, and had difficulty coming to grips with it. It's silly, but it's true.


Ricardo-CL,

It's true that religion couldn't be a formal part of the interview process, but if it were raised as a question, it wouldn't be much different from "what do you do in your spare time?" Some people are influenced in their hiring by a person's perceived connection to the community through everything from property ownership, to having a wife and kids, to church attendance. Single people who rent apartments and have no social ties to the community may have less incentive to stay and less loyalty to the company.

That's not to overvalue religion, but it could come up, and it could matter to someone.

Again, I think it's safer to tell someone you don't know that you're not really religious, or that you think faith is a personal issue, rather than that you're an atheist. That word raises the hackles of some, who then assume that you're being 'superior' or 'militant.' And really, 'not religious' means nearly the same thing as 'atheist.'


----------



## KennethB (Jul 29, 2009)

It should never come up in the workplace - ever. It's both a legal and social disaster to bring it up in the context of work.

If it, for some lack of better judgment, comes up at work, I like the response above: "My faith is a personal matter."

I live in a hotbed of religious fundamentalism, and it doesn't come up often.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

You may come across someone who asks what church you attend or they may even invite you to their church. Tell them you do not attend church and I doubt they press the issue.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

CardiffGiant has covered it well. I couldn't add much to what he said. 

As a lifelong atheist (for sixty out of my sixty four years), it has been my experience as an American, that being an atheist can result in social and work-related difficulty. I think the advice to allude to a Roman Catholic upbringing would be a good approach. (And it might assure Protestants that you are not enthusiastically embracing Rome.)

I tend to be moderately confrontational about the topic, but I am in a position where what other people think about my views on religion no longer matter. You, on the other hand will be trying to conduct business.

Bienvenidos,
Gurdon


----------



## Dingo McPhee (Aug 13, 2009)

Ricardo-CL said:


> Once there, I would probably apply for a higher position, which takes me to another question, is religion a common subject on job interviews?


It is illegal for a potential employer to ask. Doesn't necessarily mean they won't, or that they won't hint around ("So are you available to work on Sunday mornings?") but they shouldn't.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

DCLawyer68 said:


> The notion that Americans are all super religious nuts who will at the very least frown upon non-believers is a fairly commonly held view abroad in my experience (as is we're all wealthy, we're all rude, etc.)


In the words of the Italian exchange student I once dated...
What do you mean, you don't own a horse and wear boots?? ic12337:


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Gurdon said:


> As a lifelong atheist (for sixty out of my sixty four years)...


You became an atheist at age 4?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

AlanC said:


> You became an atheist at age 4?


YES!! I prayed for a pony and didn't get one!! :devil:


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

AlanC said:


> You became an atheist at age 4?


Yes. I was pretending to be God and this prompted my father to discuss the subject with me. What he said: "there is no such thing as God" made sense. Religion is interesting and I have thought about it a great deal since then.

I already had a horse.

The reason I mentioned it was to provide a context for the OP to consider my reply. I didn't want to hijack the thread.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I wouldn't worry much about it.

I've never lived in the South, but I lived for several years in the religiously and politically conservative Grand Rapids, Mich.. Among my circle of friends and colleagues my atheism was the norm, and hardly a matter of comment. When I have encountered people with a reaction to my being an atheist, it is more often a matter of surprise or bewilderment than of hostility.

That's not to say you won't encounter hostility from anyone, but you should be able to find a circle of like-minded people, or people who won't make an issue of it.

And yes, as has been pointed out, discrimination in employment or housing on the basis of religion, even to the extent of merely asking about it at a job interview, is prohibited by law except in very narrowly defined circumstances.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

people will prob ask what church you go to - so you dont have to lie if you tell them your not a church goer


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> In the words of the Italian exchange student I once dated...
> What do you mean, you don't own a horse and wear boots?? ic12337:


Exactly - I was one of a small group of Americans at a friend's wedding in Argentina.

At one point, a woman said "YOU'RE the Americans??? You were so nice and polite, we all thought you were Canadian."


----------



## Thomas Hart (Dec 1, 2008)

Overall, people will probably not care, or not pursue the subject. There are those who will view you with disdain or try to 'save you', but just be polite and if you don't enjoy being around them don't be around them. In a country so large as this one, especially in a city, you will always find accepting people. 

And, as was said earlier, saying you had a Catholic upbringing but are not religious is nice because it placates almost everyone. Luckily, if you do have to deal with fanatics you'll probably only have to deal with Evangelical fanatics. Up here in the NE you have to deal with every religion and non-religion.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

In most places it is not an issue and probably won't even come up in conversation. There are smaller towns where it is an identifier with which groups of people you share common beliefs. In those places just find out the largest group in the area and say you are one of them, but haven't been to church in a while. The alternative is to have someone trying to convert you to whatever they are.
On the whole I wouldn't worry about it. Just be busy on Sunday Morning to avoid the issue.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> And I would not lie. It is both wrong and unnecessary.


I wouldn't lie, but I wouldn't go out of my way to tell people I was an atheist, either. Avoiding the question by answering with a non-confrontational "I'm not very religious" would be the best response.



> Are you an atheist, or are you an agnostic? The reason I ask is that the few who will care are more likely to be put off by atheism than agnoticism, since the former seems grounded less in pure reason than in some type of irrational hostility. Telling a believer that you don't believe one way or another is likely to be less offensive than telling a believer that you affirmatively believe that he is wrong.


Absolutely.


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

Being born and raised in Florida living in Atlanta for 6 years and then in Tennessee for the last 6, most people if any at all will ask what religion you are. You will probably be asked what church you are going to, or if you would like to come to church with them. Simply state that you do not attend church but appreciate their offer and that will either end the discussion. Or someone genuinely interested in you will ask why if you don't mind sharing and you will probably have a nice discussion. One thing though, if someone invites you to church for a homecomming or some special event, especially a Baptist church, you might want to think about going because there is always food after, its always free and usually really good especially the pies. There will also probably be as many deserts as their are people. As someone born and raised Southern Baptist I would hold a conversation with someone about their different beliefs no matter what, and I would probably give an open invitation to attend church with me or talk if you ever wanted to, but thats as far as it would go.


----------



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

I have no words to thank you all for the comments, I never though I would get so much attention and in such a helping spirit.

You guys surely helped me a great deal to eradicate a lot misconceptions I had about this particular topic. If it wasn't for this post, I would have probably decided to take a rather defensive and closed attitude towards this subject, now I feel confident that following your advise I will be able to blend in without giving up on my beliefs.

Thank you!


----------



## rabidawg (Apr 14, 2009)

The topic has never been raised to me in my five years in Atlanta, whether in a professional or social environment. If it comes up:

Q: Where do you go to church?
A: Oh, I don't.

Q: Would you like to come to my church?
A: No, thank you.

Q: Do you believe in God?
A: I'm sorry, I need to go freshen my drink.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Ricardo-CL said:


> I have my arguments, and I wouldn't share them unless I'm asked for, but lying is something that doesn't suit me.


Please don't take this the wrong way but why does lying not suit you? You're an atheist, correct? You don't prescribe to a pre-ordained moral construct that comes from something without. You don't believe in an immortal soul subject to free will.

Embrace your atheism and lie and tell the truth when it is convenient. You are, after all, your own master.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Herrsuit (Aug 4, 2009)

As KennethB said, religion is deprecated in business conversation in the US. At my workplace, discussion about politics and religion are expressly verboten.


----------



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

pt4u67 said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way but why does lying not suit you? You're an atheist, correct? You don't prescribe to a pre-ordained moral construct that comes from something without. You don't believe in an immortal soul subject to free will.
> 
> Embrace your atheism and lie and tell the truth when it is convenient. You are, after all, your own master.
> 
> Just my thoughts.


Your comment is very welcome. I embrace the concept of Sincerity as a value, or virtue if you will, among many other which I learned from my elders and social work I've done through my entire life. Sincerity is not inherent to a particular religion, in fact it has been studied since ancient time by Western societies.
If I had to categorize the concept of Sincerity or "not lying", I would put it into what we know as Ethics, which has nothing to do with religion. I decided not to lie for a moral reason rather than guaranteeing my life after death or go to heaven, I simply do it because doing good makes you have a better life, makes you been praised by your peers and is what we need to teach our children to ensure society is evolving in the right direction.

And I'm not my own master, I'm just another member of the society, who have decided to do the best I can while living, as you decided to believe, I decided not to, but in a very passive way, I'm not worshiping any other god or object, I simply don't believe in any god whatsoever, and that's not something I could master about.

Being atheist, is probably, the only actually "passive" religion, we don't believe in anything, and as such, we don't ask anybody to even share our point of view.

As I said, I grew up in a Catholic family, and a very old-fashioned one, I had to take philosophy courses throughout college and grad school, I spoke many times with the priest that my family has been close to during many years. It wasn't easy I tell you, to try to be a good person, but not close to the church. I don't want to make this any longer, but I will tell you a small story, more than 5 years ago there was a campaign to eradicate homeless families in Chile building economic homes with the basic utilities, as I was finishing grad school in Germany with a Msc. in renewable energies, I offered my help to the church, I raised some funds from a German company which by that time was new in Chile. The project consisted of solar heating systems for the community center and a sport hall, but I never had a call back. Some time later, I ran across the priest I mentioned before, and he told me he couldn't convince to have some atheist working for the project. Right now the families must pay their own heating.

One more clarification, I opened this discussion in order to get some advise, I never intended to talk about religion or even try to boast about my point of view, at the end of the day this is a style forum with a very refined group of members, which I considered perfectly fitted to answer my questions in this regard.

Thanks. :icon_smile:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way but why does lying not suit you? You're an atheist, correct? You don't prescribe to a pre-ordained moral construct that comes from something without. You don't believe in an immortal soul subject to free will.
> 
> Embrace your atheism and lie and tell the truth when it is convenient. You are, after all, your own master.
> 
> Just my thoughts.


I'm not taking it the wrong way either. You have just chosen to gratuitously insult a substantial segment of the population as people without morals who will lie when it suits us.

Don't worry. I had no trouble understanding that.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I have spent the overwhelming majority of my 60 years in the Southeastern United States. I am a Southern Baptist but to be honest with you I have no idea as to the religious beliefs, or non-beliefs, of many of my friends. It really isn't something that we sit around and talk about. If you don't bring the subject up, most of the people you encounter won't do so either; and if they do, I can think of a dozen or more ways to tactfully re-direct the conversation. At the end of the day this simply doesn't have to be an issue if you don't want it to be an issue.

Cruiser


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

A good chunk of Mecklenberg County (Metro Charlotte) consists of reprobate, metrosexual, carpetbag-influxer, Buffalo-wing gnawing, absinthe-addled, Nietzsche quoting "psophisticated" degenerates anyways.

Fine folk oft espied @ the Davidson Wal-Mart


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I'm not taking it the wrong way either. You have just chosen to gratuitously insult a substantial segment of the population as people without morals who will lie when it suits us.
> 
> Don't worry. I had no trouble understanding that.


I'm not trying to insult everyone. I'm simply stating that as an atheist, one excludes a source of morality from without. That being said, why should someone feel bad about lying if it suits his/her needs?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm not trying to insult everyone. I'm simply stating that as an atheist, one excludes a source of morality from without. That being said, why should someone feel bad about lying if it suits his/her needs?


I believe there is an inherent decency among people even though it can be difficult to find sometimes!! 

Exhibit a; the Hippocratic Oath penned in the 4th century BC by a Pegan.


----------



## turban1 (May 29, 2008)

*plausible deniability said Nixon*

i worked a long time in the region albeit not too recently. many deeply religious people ask only because it is so important to them, and while they may be disappointed by your answer they will retain their manners. a small proportion will indeed hold it against you, so you might consider saying you are still making up your mind, but that may get you invited to church.

i anyone invites you to join them in prayer on some matter, grab your belongings, leave the building and hail a taxi for they are almost certainly mountebanks who will cheat you as soon as possible.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Ricardo-CL said:


> As I said, I grew up in a Catholic family, and a very old-fashioned one, I had to take philosophy courses throughout college and grad school, I spoke many times with the priest that my family has been close to during many years. It wasn't easy I tell you, to try to be a good person, but not close to the church. I don't want to make this any longer, but I will tell you a small story, more than 5 years ago there was a campaign to eradicate homeless families in Chile building economic homes with the basic utilities, as I was finishing grad school in Germany with a Msc. in renewable energies, I offered my help to the church, I raised some funds from a German company which by that time was new in Chile. The project consisted of solar heating systems for the community center and a sport hall, but I never had a call back. Some time later, I ran across the priest I mentioned before, and he told me he couldn't convince to have some atheist working for the project. Right now the families must pay their own heating.
> 
> Thanks. :icon_smile:


That experience strikes me as both unfortunate and odd. I can assure you that it is highly unlikely that you would encounter a similar experience with a Catholic priest in North Carolina.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I believe there is an inherent decency among people even though it can be difficult to find sometimes!!
> 
> Exhibit a; the Hippocratic Oath penned in the 4th century BC by a Pegan.


A pagan, yes, but as the original oath itself makes clear, not an atheist. 
That said, as a Catholic I agree that moral law is written on the hearts of men, and therefore one need not know God, or even seek Him, in order to be aware of right and wrong. Accordingly, while I do believe God is the genesis of moral law, I do not believe that God has restricted access to His moral precepts only to those who believe in Him, even if I do believe that He grants to his faithful the gift of a Church to aid in discernment and discipline.
I don't know any atheists, at least in the narrow sense, but know many agnostics, and most are very fine and upstanding people, and I do not presume to be closer to Heaven than them notwithstanding my deep faith. It is quite possible that in the end I, more than they, will be dependent on the mercy of God.


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm not trying to insult everyone. I'm simply stating that as an atheist, one excludes a source of morality from without. That being said, why should someone feel bad about lying if it suits his/her needs?


Because there's such a thing as a source of moral authority from within. The best kind, not based on external compulsion!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

So, no one is actually going to tell him? :devil:


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

oh and just remember, most people are athiests when it comes to other peoples god(s) xtians don't believe Shiva is god, and jews dont believe Jesus is god, you get the idea, some of us just take it one god further


----------



## KCKclassic (Jul 27, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> A pagan, yes, but as the original oath itself makes clear, not an atheist.
> That said, as a Catholic I agree that moral law is written on the hearts of men, and therefore one need not know God, or even seek Him, in order to be aware of right and wrong. Accordingly, while I do believe God is the genesis of moral law, I do not believe that God has restricted access to His moral precepts only to those who believe in Him, even if I do believe that He grants to his faithful the gift of a Church to aid in discernment and discipline.
> I don't know any atheists, at least in the narrow sense, but know many agnostics, and most are very fine and upstanding people, and I do not presume to be closer to Heaven than them notwithstanding my deep faith. It is quite possible that in the end I, more than they, will be dependent on the mercy of God.


very well put!


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

There was that sociological study a couple of years ago that showed that atheists were the "most distrusted" minority group in America--trusted "below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians," etc.--a couple of years ago. 



And the received wisdom that an avowed atheist could never be elected to the presidency in the US is doubtless true.

So I'm afraid the consensus here, that you should avoid the topic of religion wherever possible without positively lying about what you think, is right. 

It's a testament to the peculiar power of religious belief among Americans that someone up-thread even said that to admit you're an atheist is a kind of insult to those who believe in God. Presumably it doesn't work the other way around: to profess belief is not seen as an insult to atheists, even though, equally enough, the believer is implying that the atheist is wrong.

It's a peculiar dynamic, which has something to do with the strong presumption in American life that religious belief is normal, and atheism is nothing less than an assault on normality.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*"Born Again"*

Like others in this thread, I don't expect that you will have a bit of trouble in your new location. People in the States are as accepting as those on other continents.

I do have a family member that I call a "born again atheist". She is constantly on the prowl for Christians. If you are in a group with her and someone sneezes, you hope (and pray) that no one will say "Bless you" because the fight is on!!

Uninvited proselytizing is never welcome whether from a Christian, a Sikh or an atheist.

Enjoy your new home!


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

If it ever came up in conversation I find, "I was raised Catholic," does the trick.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Ricardo,

I think you may also find that people will be more interested in your Chilean connections than any particular religion. Certainly among wine drinkers in the US, as soon as you mention Chile many get animated on the subject of cabernet sauvignons and other wonderful Chilean exports. :icon_smile:

You may also find that after living in your new home for a time that it reminds you of Chile in some ways, especially in terms of socially conservative behaviors.

All in all, I hope you pursue your opportunity if it seems the right thing for you to do. This is definitely an interesting time to be living in the United States!


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

young guy said:


> oh and just remember, most people are athiests when it comes to other peoples god(s) *xtians* don't believe Shiva is god, and jews dont believe Jesus is god, you get the idea, some of us just take it one god further


I've never seen "xtian" before.

That puts the X-men in a whole new light.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://www.hiddenmysteries.org/religion/pentecostal/snakeskill-fool.shtml


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Lord Foppington said:


> Because there's such a thing as a source of moral authority from within. The best kind, not based on external compulsion!


Moral authority from within is subjective. To deny the existence of an ultimate source of moral truth, we are left to search ourselves for that truth. Without an ideal standard then our urges and needs dictate what our moral conduct should be. Its the worst, not the best, source of morality and ethics.

An atheist should not feel bad about lying, especially if it serves his purpose. Why tell the truth at all? Your morality and ethical conduct is authored, executed and ultimately judged by you. You make the rules, provided you're not breaking man made laws, and therefore you can dismiss them when needed.


----------



## Herrsuit (Aug 4, 2009)

*Wings?*



jamgood said:


> A good chunk of Mecklenberg County (Metro Charlotte) consists of reprobate, metrosexual, carpetbag-influxer, Buffalo-wing gnawing, absinthe-addled, Nietzsche quoting "psophisticated" degenerates anyways.
> 
> Fine folk oft espied @ the Davidson Wal-Mart


Buffalo-wing gnawing? I resemble your remark minus the metrosexual--but what about buffalo wings has anything to do with us carpetbaggers?


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Moral authority from within is subjective. To deny the existence of an ultimate source of moral truth, we are left to search ourselves for that truth.


No, moral authority from within is based on my own best use of my reason and my judgment, neither of which is merely subjective.


----------



## pt10023 (Jan 14, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Moral authority from within is subjective. To deny the existence of an ultimate source of moral truth, we are left to search ourselves for that truth. Without an ideal standard then our urges and needs dictate what our moral conduct should be. Its the worst, not the best, source of morality and ethics.
> 
> An atheist should not feel bad about lying, especially if it serves his purpose. Why tell the truth at all? Your morality and ethical conduct is authored, executed and ultimately judged by you. You make the rules, provided you're not breaking man made laws, and therefore you can dismiss them when needed.


So you think the only reason to feel bad is about lying is fear of punishment from an external judge? That says something about you. It doesn't say anything about atheists.


----------



## Jake1990 (Jan 5, 2009)

pt4u67 said:


> Moral authority from within is subjective. To deny the existence of an ultimate source of moral truth, we are left to search ourselves for that truth. Without an ideal standard then our urges and needs dictate what our moral conduct should be. Its the worst, not the best, source of morality and ethics.
> 
> An atheist should not feel bad about lying, especially if it serves his purpose. Why tell the truth at all? Your morality and ethical conduct is authored, executed and ultimately judged by you. You make the rules, provided you're not breaking man made laws, and therefore you can dismiss them when needed.


No, you make the rules and you stick to them. And there are many other members of society who will judge you for having shaky morals. If they find out that you're an atheist too this will simply strengthen the kind of prejudice that the OP is worried about encountering and you seem to possess. I ask you what is more admirable; sticking to a moral code because you want to be a good person, or doing so because you're terrified of the wrath of your god?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

PetroLandman said:


> I do have a family member that I call a "born again atheist". She is constantly on the prowl for Christians. If you are in a group with her and someone sneezes, you hope (and pray) that no one will say "Bless you" because the fight is on!!


Haha!!

That is one strange phenomenon I've noticed too.

Those that eschew God and religion, yet try to convert their own version of non-non-believers, hand out literature, and quote Ayn Rand chapter and verse!!

Or the anti-fashion crowd that has to have just the "right" purple hair, lip piercing and tattoo!!

HAR!!

But seriously now folks, I was reminded of a fellow I once knew from Hispaniola. Thus, Spanish was his first language and English his second. He was European (German) by descent and as white as a gost!!

Everyone presumed he was Mexican when they heard him on the phone and didn't believe he was who he said he was when they met him.

Boy, was he pissed, but he eventually developed a sense of humor about it.

BTW~Religion never came up.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

The bigger schism to me isn't between those who believe / those who don't, but those who think people should be free to choose and those who don't, and the latter aren't restricted to any one viewpoint.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

Interesting commentary but I feel the real problem comes from those who believe and insist in sharing their beliefs and act with the conviction ( or is it delusion?) that you must be inducted, converted, into following their belief system.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Lord Foppington said:


> No, moral authority from within is based on my own best use of my reason and my judgment, neither of which is merely subjective.


Your argument is inherently flawed. Please read your statement and you will see. Look up circular argument.



pt10023 said:


> So you think the only reason to feel bad is about lying is fear of punishment from an external judge? That says something about you. It doesn't say anything about atheists.


No, and its a mis-characterization. Knowing the truth is a grace from God to allow us to live our lives in a better manner. It is what separates us from the animals. One who loves God will not lie, not for fear of punishment, but because they love God more than the earthly delight that the lie will bring (sex, money, etc.).

The atheist does not believe in the divine. He does not believe in an immortal soul and so therefore should not be worried about lying. He can lie all he wants without worrying his conscience. His obligation is to whatever is of the greatest good for himself, without any regard to a higher truth. Therefore, if lying benefits him more than telling the truth, let him lie.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

A welcoming party of the Mecklenburg Presbytery of The Ulster-American Inquisition 
greets a suspiciously tarted-up visitor by introducing her to the torments of The Rack.









(Re: Mr. Suit. 7.8394% of the residents of Mecklenburg County, 
NC are natives of Buffalo, NY according to The Census Bureau.)


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Your argument is inherently flawed. Please read your statement and you will see. Look up circular argument.


Your argument is inherently inadequate. Please read it again and recognize the emptiness of your plonking dogmatism.

Seriously, I can only speculate about what you have in mind. I suspect you think that because I said "my" reason, it must be what you call "subjective," and that a person can't use his own reason to obtain justified true beliefs.

Both are false views. When I use my reason, I am not relying on external authority to tell me what is true. This is not to say I can't make mistakes. The great thing about using reason is that the claims you make can be checked by others and, if necessary, corrected. If I see I'm wrong, I again use my reason to make the correction.

But this is entirely different from merely accepting external authority about what must be true. In that case, my reason isn't involved, there's no checking to be done, and no rational assent to be had. The text, or some other authority, says something's true. Why? Because the text says so.

To which I say no thank you. I'd rather use my own reason and my own judgment (always open to improvement and correction, of course) than rely on mere authority.

EDIT: I'm happy to stay with this discussion and, with your references to grace and so forth, I have a pretty good idea where you're coming from. But if it's to continue, please don't pretend like you've never heard of the Enlightenment, even if you don't believe in Enlightenment ideals of rational discourse. It's a waste of our time.


----------



## pt10023 (Jan 14, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> No, and its a mis-characterization.


How so? Even you call it "love of God" rather than "fear of God," your system still requires belief in an external being to motivate you to do the right thing.



pt4u67 said:


> Knowing the truth is a grace from God to allow us to live our lives in a better manner. It is what separates us from the animals.


The idea that such knowledge is "a grace from God" is your subjective opinion, not an objective truth. You may believe it's an objective truth, but that belief is also nothing more than your subjective opinion.



pt4u67 said:


> The atheist does not believe in the divine. He does not believe in an immortal soul and so therefore should not be worried about lying.


The fact that you chose the words "be worried about lying" shows that you are motivated by fear or "worry", rather than love, whether you realize that or not.



pt4u67 said:


> He can lie all he wants without worrying his conscience. His obligation is to whatever is of the greatest good for himself, without any regard to a higher truth. Therefore, if lying benefits him more than telling the truth, let him lie.


And yet the OP chooses not to lie. He chooses to act in a moral fashion. He chooses not to pursue what is the greatest good for himself. That is the reality of what he does, no matter what you think he should do. You express confusion about why he does so, and seem almost annoyed that he doesn't want to lie. I believe your confusion and annoyance stems from the fact that your belief system, in which people can only do what's right if they're worried (your word) about what God is going to do their immortal souls, can't account for the fact he acts in a moral fashion without fearing retribution from God. That's evidence of a flaw in _your_ belief system, not in his.


----------



## Jake1990 (Jan 5, 2009)

Are you so blind in your belief that you cannot accept that people can live to their own moral code which they devise without having to be afraid of hell?


pt4u67 said:


> One who loves God will not lie, not for fear of punishment, but because they love God more than the earthly delight that the lie will bring (sex, money, etc.).


Funny that, when the Nazis came to visit my strongly Catholic great-grandfather's villa in Belgium, he lied. About the Jews in the cellar that is.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Lord Foppington said:


> Your argument is inherently inadequate. Please read it again and recognize the emptiness of your plonking dogmatism.
> 
> Seriously, I can only speculate about what you have in mind. I suspect you think that because I said "my" reason, it must be what you call "subjective," and that a person can't use his own reason to obtain justified true beliefs.
> 
> ...


There is nothing wrong with reason, and I am aware of the Enlightenment. The problem with the Enlightenment, at least certain adherents, is that it tried to replace the objective truth of God with one's own reason. People are inherently flawed, therefore our reasoning is inherently flawed. Reason must be subject to the eternal truth and cannot stand alone as the source of truth.

There are those who would argue, as I would, that it was the Enlightenment that gave us the horrors of the 20th century. Just look at the Reign of Terror and you'll see what happens when people abandon the eternal truth for transitory reason.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Jake1990 said:


> Are you so blind in your belief that you cannot accept that people can live to their own moral code which they devise without having to be afraid of hell?
> 
> Funny that, when the Nazis came to visit my strongly Catholic great-grandfather's villa in Belgium, he lied. About the Jews in the cellar that is.


That's the old "what if the Nazis asked if you were hiding Anne Franke in your attic" argument and moral philosophers from Aristotle to Aquinas have debunked it! To lie to protect someone from an evil is not immoral, in the secular sense, nor a sin. Go fishing elsewhere!


----------



## Jake1990 (Jan 5, 2009)

pt4u67 said:


> That's the old "what if the Nazis asked if you were hiding Anne Franke in your attic" argument and moral philosophers from Aristotle to Aquinas have debunked it! To lie to protect someone from an evil is not immoral, in the secular sense, nor a sin. Go fishing elsewhere!


I made the point to illustrate the difficult and flexible nature of morality. Since you purport to base your morality on that dictated by your god, you must follow your own take on the morality presented in the bible, as interpreted and twisted by centuries of philosophers seeking to make the moral system which existed millennia ago resemble their own. In short you either make the choice yourself which parts of the bible to follow, and which interpretation of those parts, or you follow that version which has been presented to you. That is in no way objective. There's no difference between me choosing my own morals and what you do besides that you actually believe them to be _spiritu sanctu dictante_ and therefore fear the consequences of disobedience. That fear is no more likely to make you follow the moral code you have chosen than my own will.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Jake1990 said:


> I made the point to illustrate the difficult and flexible nature of morality. Since you purport to base your morality on that dictated by your god, you must follow your own take on the morality presented in the bible, as interpreted and twisted by centuries of philosophers seeking to make the moral system which existed millennia ago resemble their own. In short you either make the choice yourself which parts of the bible to follow, and which interpretation of those parts, or you follow that version which has been presented to you. That is in no way objective. There's no difference between me choosing my own morals and what you do besides that you actually believe them to be _spiritu sanctu dictante_ and therefore fear the consequences of disobedience. That fear is no more likely to make you follow the moral code you have chosen than my own will.


Your "point" was wholly invalid from the beginning. There has never been a question about the morality of the situation you presented, and there is no inherent conflict in a lie in such a situation.

As for the rest of your argument, you're setting up a straw man. Of course its easy to dismiss moral objectivity rooted in God if you buy into the argument that our morality has been "twisted and abused" through the centuries. It has been, but the truth has not changed. The truth is still the truth regardless of how some people choose to address it. A radical interpretation of the Truth to suits one's needs does not inherently change the nature of the truth. The same way as using water to hydrate and using water to wash does not change the property of water.


----------



## Jake1990 (Jan 5, 2009)

pt4u67 said:


> Your "point" was wholly invalid from the beginning. There has never been a question about the morality of the situation you presented, and there is no inherent conflict in a lie in such a situation.
> 
> As for the rest of your argument, you're setting up a straw man. Of course its easy to dismiss moral objectivity rooted in God if you buy into the argument that our morality has been "twisted and abused" through the centuries. It has been, but the truth has not changed. The truth is still the truth regardless of how some people choose to address it. A radical interpretation of the Truth to suits one's needs does not inherently change the nature of the truth. The same way as using water to hydrate and using water to wash does not change the property of water.


Clearly you misunderstand. My point is that in some situations you have to make a decision to do something, such as tell an untruth, which in other circumstances would be considered immoral but which is the moral thing in that situation. Which complicates the concept of morality somewhat. The Nazi point illustrates this well I feel.
Morality changes; for example today we consider it immoral to own another person, whereas when the bible was written it was regarded as perfectly acceptable and in the intervening period that particular book has been used to justify both views. Surely one of these must be an incorrect interpretation. I fail to see the point of your water analogy; no it doesn't change the truth if you interpret it radically, but that interpretation may still be wrong. You choose to follow (I presume) modern interpretations of the morality presented in the bible. Who is to say that this decision accurately reflects what was intended? We both make a choice about the moral code we wish to follow and neither of us is capable of making an objective decision.


----------



## pleaderwilliams (Aug 20, 2009)

pt4u67 said:


> The problem with the Enlightenment, at least certain adherents, is that it tried to replace the *objective truth of God* with one's own reason. People are inherently flawed, therefore our reasoning is inherently flawed.


This is where your entire argument falls apart. Until you can provide us with *objective* proof of a gods existence, his objectivity, and his invention of this moral code, then it is only your subjective faith that you are following.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Jake1990 said:


> *Clearly you misunderstand. My point is that in some situations you have to make a decision to do something, such as tell an untruth, which in other circumstances would be considered immoral but which is the moral thing in that situation. Which complicates the concept of morality somewhat. The Nazi point illustrates this well I feel.
> Morality changes; for example today we consider it immoral to own another person, whereas when the bible was written it was regarded as perfectly acceptable and in the intervening period that particular book has been used to justify both views. *Surely one of these must be an incorrect interpretation. I fail to see the point of your water analogy; no it doesn't change the truth if you interpret it radically, but that interpretation may still be wrong. You choose to follow (I presume) modern interpretations of the morality presented in the bible. Who is to say that this decision accurately reflects what was intended? We both make a choice about the moral code we wish to follow and neither of us is capable of making an objective decision.


No, I'm not missing your point. I'm simply illustrating that your point is not novel and has been argued and settled from over 2000 years ago! Its hardly a gotcha scenario. Of course to save an innocent life it is moral to lie. The morality of any action lies in its intent. This was argued from Aristotle and on. Understand that I'm not considering man made law when I apply this.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

pleaderwilliams said:


> This is where your entire argument falls apart. Until you can provide us with *objective* proof of a gods existence, his objectivity, and his invention of this moral code, then it is only your subjective faith that you are following.


Ahhhh, the old objective proof argument. I was wondering when that would come up. Of course God cannot be tested in a laboratory because God sits above his creation. His proof is in the existence that he created. He is not subject to being tested, because the plane in which testing occurs and the interpreters of the results live cannot comprehend the mind of God.

But I realize that that is an argument for the believer. For the non-believer I would simply ask this. Where did our existence come from? Where did the Universe come from? Is the Universe eternal? Is there a science that can test this? Were we (the universe) created or have we always existed? Is it possible for something to always exist and to deny the existence of God? If we were created, who (or what) created us? If you subscribe to the Big Bang theory, where did the matter that went "bang" come from?

I may not be able to give you objective proof of God, I think even St. Anselm would give you that, however I am able to deduce the existence of God from excluding all other alternatives.


----------



## pleaderwilliams (Aug 20, 2009)

Then we agree, it simply comes down to belief, you believe one thing, I believe another. It's all subjective, you can't prove that you are right, and I can't prove I'm right.

Therefore, the whole argument is pointless, so why not respect each other and not post a snarky remark about atheists and their moral code?


----------



## pt10023 (Jan 14, 2008)

pleaderwilliams said:


> . . . so why not respect each other and not post a snarky remark about atheists and their moral code?


Exactly.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

pleaderwilliams said:


> Then we agree, it simply comes down to belief, you believe one thing, I believe another. It's all subjective, you can't prove that you are right, and I can't prove I'm right.
> 
> Therefore, the whole argument is pointless, so why not respect each other and not post a snarky remark about atheists and their moral code?


I don't think what I posted was snarky at all! The OP asked about lying about being an atheist and I simply remarked that lying to suit one's needs should not bother an atheist. I'm not judging the person, that's not for me to do. I'm simply stating that an atheist should not be worried about lying, if that lie serves his purpose at that time.


----------



## pleaderwilliams (Aug 20, 2009)

You *believe* that an atheist doesn't have to worry about lying if it suits themself. The OP clearly stated that he does not want to lie. He, I, and every other atheist I have ever met all believe in a moral code that precludes lying. I'm sure you know that, so why not respect that belief, and not make your comment?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

pleaderwilliams said:


> You *believe* that an atheist doesn't have to worry about lying if it suits themself. The OP clearly stated that he does not want to lie. He, I, and every other atheist I have ever met all believe in a moral code that precludes lying. I'm sure you know that, so why not respect that belief, and not make your comment?


If the OP doesn't want to lie the he shouldn't lie. If he wants to, then he should. Its quite simple really. He, however, posted his dilemma and I put forth my opinion. I didn't imply that he was immoral, nor did I disparage his belief system, or lack thereof. I really don't see why you're so worked up about it.

Just out of curiosity, as a self professed atheist, where do you get your moral code from?


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Just out of curiosity, as a self professed atheist, where do you get your moral code from?


I don't speak for pleaderwilliams, of course, but I (openly professing myself an atheist now) get my moral sense ("code" seems altogether the wrong word) from innumerable sources.

My parents, first of all. The playground, which instills a healthy sense of fair play, growing out of vivid recognitions of the competing interests of others. Various social interactions, with healthy reflections on what makes such interactions possible and productive. Then, later of course, books, by authors from innumerable traditions, pagan, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, etc. etc. All these as engaged by my best reason and judgment.

Putting the question of religious belief aside, it just seems fundamentally implausible to me that the repugnance I feel for acts of cruelty, for instance, derives from anything so abstract and external as an authority telling me to feel that way, or so metaphysical (and also abstract) as something you call divine grace.

So the answer is, in a nutshell: socialization, as judged and assented to (or not) my own reason.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Lord Foppington said:


> I don't speak for pleaderwilliams, of course, but I (openly professing myself an atheist now) get my moral sense ("code" seems altogether the wrong word) from innumerable sources.
> 
> My parents, first of all. The playground, which instills a healthy sense of fair play, growing out of vivid recognitions of the competing interests of others. Various social interactions, with healthy reflections on what makes such interactions possible and productive. Then, later of course, books, by authors from innumerable traditions, pagan, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, etc. etc. All these as engaged by my best reason and judgment.
> 
> ...


I believe you. I really do. However, what is the ultimate source of our morality? Animals undergo socialization as well and some form quite complex societies, but do they understand good from evil?

Its easy to look around and see what is considered acceptable behavior in society; don't steal, cheat or harm others. Be kind and courteous, etc. etc. What if your reason, however, does not comport to someone else's reason. Is there an ultimate truth? Is there an ultimate moral code by which we model our behavior on?


----------



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

Just want to say thank you to everyone who replied. It's really a great deal of information you have provided, though I've talked with people who has been relocated in the past, I never had such a clear picture of the different points of view that I'm going to find in my new home, and how should I approach each of them.

I'm surprised by the background that most of you showed to stand up for your ideas, and in such a very respectful way, this confirms that I wasn't wrong that this was the most appropriate community to ask about this.

Thank you.


----------



## LD111134 (Dec 21, 2007)

dwebber18 said:


> Being born and raised in Florida living in Atlanta for 6 years and then in Tennessee for the last 6, most people if any at all will ask what religion you are. You will probably be asked what church you are going to, or if you would like to come to church with them. Simply state that you do not attend church but appreciate their offer and that will either end the discussion. Or someone genuinely interested in you will ask why if you don't mind sharing and you will probably have a nice discussion. One thing though, if someone invites you to church for a homecomming or some special event, especially a Baptist church, you might want to think about going because there is always food after, its always free and usually really good especially the pies. There will also probably be as many deserts as their are people. As someone born and raised Southern Baptist I would hold a conversation with someone about their different beliefs no matter what, and I would probably give an open invitation to attend church with me or talk if you ever wanted to, but thats as far as it would go.


I am a dyed-in-the-wool northern progressive Catholic-turned-atheist-turned-liberal-Protestant-turned-agnostic (yes, it's complicated), but I lived in Memphis for two years. I found that many of my co-workers were interested in knowing about my religious beliefs and some argued with me about them and a couple actively tried to "save" me. Where I worked, the senior management held a weekly Bible study. One meeting started with a Christian prayer.

However, I surmise that my experience at this firm was unusual, even for Memphis (which is home to many conservative Christians). Most people that I knew and every one of my Memphis friends did care about my (non-)belief. Thus, my advice is to avoid any discussions of atheism and simply tell people that you aren't religious - most, if not all, people will respect your privacy.


----------



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

LD111134 said:


> I am a dyed-in-the-wool northern progressive Catholic-turned-atheist-turned-liberal-Protestant-turned-agnostic (yes, it's complicated), but I lived in Memphis for two years. I found that many of my co-workers were interested in knowing about my religious beliefs and some argued with me about them and a couple actively tried to "save" me. Where I worked, the senior management held a weekly Bible study. One meeting started with a Christian prayer.
> 
> However, I surmise that my experience at this firm was unusual, even for Memphis (which is home to many conservative Christians). Most people that I knew and every one of my Memphis friends did care about my (non-)belief. Thus, my advice is to avoid any discussions of atheism and simply tell people that you aren't religious - most, if not all, people will respect your privacy.


Just curious, did you ever feel that your beliefs could have been a reason to not get into the upper management or another significant promotion? I know 2 years is not enough to tell if you were stuck or not, hence I'm just asking for the feeling...


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Don't see how anybody can be an atheist. If you are a atheist then all you are is just rocks, liquid and vapor, and they can't have a conscience. And, abnormal psychology has vices in it, which is impossible for rocks, liquid and vapor to have.

You "atheist" have a lot of explaining to do.


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

WA said:


> Don't see how anybody can be an atheist. If you are a atheist then all you are is just rocks, liquid and vapor, and they can't have a conscience. And, abnormal psychology has vices in it, which is impossible for rocks, liquid and vapor to have.
> 
> You "atheist" have a lot of explaining to do.


This is begging the question. The atheist contends that certain combinations of rocks, liquid, and vapor can indeed have consciences.

It's also a version of the genetic fallacy. Higher forms of life can do all sorts of things that their components can't do on their own.

A bit of carbon floating around can't drive a car, but I can, even though I'm made of carbon and other elements equally lifeless in themselves.

Unless you mean to contend that the fact that I can drive proves there's a God!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Lord Foppington said:


> This is begging the question. The atheist contends that certain combinations of rocks, liquid, and vapor can indeed have consciences.
> 
> It's also a version of the genetic fallacy. Higher forms of life can do all sorts of things that their components can't do on their own.
> 
> ...


Carbon comes from life. Where did life come from?

And what is rocks, liquid, and vapor? Are these three not the same? Take water you can turn it into a vapor or a rock by temperature as anything else.


----------



## pt10023 (Jan 14, 2008)

WA said:


> Carbon comes from life. Where did life come from?


Just because we're not currently able to answer that question doesn't prove that it comes from some sort of higher being or god.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by WA 
Carbon comes from life. Where did life come from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pt10023
Just because we're not currently able to answer that question doesn't prove that it comes from some sort of higher being or god.

Then it is ridiculous that God is not included in the education, because He may have created all that you see, hear, taste, feel, etc. How can a rock create taste or anything else?

As you show above, evolution is nothing more than a belief and not science. You belief is dumber than any religious belief. Since macro evolution is a far fetched silly belief, and only based on the imagination, it should not be taught in any tax payed schools.


----------



## pt10023 (Jan 14, 2008)

WA said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by WA
> Carbon comes from life. Where did life come from?
> 
> ...


I'm not quite sure of how I've shown that evolution is nothing more than a belief and not science. And I'm not sure how how the question of what should be taught in schools relates to the OP's question. I also don't know how you can characterize my belief as "dumber" than other beliefs, as I haven't espoused any particular set of beliefs. Perhaps when I said "we're not currently able to answer that question," you thought I was saying "we evolutionists"; I was not. What I meant was that human beings, whether using religion, science, philosophy or anything else, cannot definitively say where life came from. It _may have_ come from a god or other higher being, and it may not have. You, however, are saying that it _has_ to have come from a god or higher being, and that there's no other possible explanation.

You go on to say that atheists have a lot of explaining to do. Actually, the OP and other atheists don't have to explain anything, to you, me or anyone else. Atheists have a belief system that works for them an that they're happy with, just like religious adherents do. Members of each group owe no explanation to members of the other group, and neither group's members have the right to look down on those in the other group. That's because each set of beliefs is based on the subjective opinion of its adherents, and neither group can prove the validity of its belief system with absolute certainty.

I understand that the idea that the universe sprang into existence without a creator may not make sense to you, and the question of how that could have happened is legitimate. However, the fact that the question is legitimate does not mean that your answer - that a higher being caused it to exist - is the the absolute, definitive truth. There are other questions, and other possible explanations. Where did the higher being come from? Who created him or her? The religious answers seem to be that the higher being created him or herself, or always existed, or spontaneously formed out of nothing. If the higher being could do those things, why couldn't human conscience and life do so as well? Why does the higher being get to pop out of nothing, when all other life can't? You may respond by posing answers those questions. That's not the point. Any answer you give is again going to be based on your subjective beliefs, and not on something that you can prove or I can disprove.

I originally posted on this thread because someone suggested that atheists have no real sense of morality, and that any atheist who strives to be moral is either pretending to be an atheist or being disingenuous. I responded to your post because you said you don't see how anyone can be an atheist, suggesting that the entire belief system is illegitimate. Both you and the other poster are criticizing atheists simply because their subjective opinions don't match your subjective opinions. That's not really a defensible position. If the OP does choose to move, I hope he ends up surrounded by people who are willing to respect his right to his opinion, just as I'm sure he'll respect theirs.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Just an observation, the original question was one of "moral authority"; which is quite different and by definition cannot be internal. 

That said; I don't disagree with the preceding post that atheists can have their own sense of morality, but it does seem subjective and by definition changeable. 

So, my question is: what would cause there to be an enduring nature to an atheist's sense of morality?


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Just an observation, the original question was one of "moral authority"; which is quite different and by definition cannot be internal.
> 
> That said; I don't disagree with the preceding post that atheists can have their own sense of morality, but it does seem subjective and by definition changeable.
> 
> So, my question is: what would cause there to be an enduring nature to an atheist's sense of morality?


One could well argue that the major religions, especially Christianity, have historically had a somewhat varying sense of morality. Its just that institutions tend to change more slowly than individuals.


----------



## pt10023 (Jan 14, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Just an observation, the original question was one of "moral authority"; which is quite different and by definition cannot be internal.
> 
> That said; I don't disagree with the preceding post that atheists can have their own sense of morality, but it does seem subjective and by definition changeable.
> 
> So, my question is: what would cause there to be an enduring nature to an atheist's sense of morality?


As one possible answer, I think the desire to live in a fair and just society is a potential motivator. That could be based in compassion for other beings - I don't think a belief in God is necessary to feel empathy for another person's suffering. Or it could be motivated by self interest - the recognition that the long-term security and stability of a fair and just society is more advantageous than the short-term benefits of lying, stealing or other immoral acts. Again, that's just one possible answer.

With regard to the changeability of morality - I think our society's sense of morality is very changeable. 200 years ago, many people in our society thought slavery was morally acceptable. Today we do not. Our sense of morality develops as we develop. It's likely that in 100 years, things we now consider to be moral will be considered immoral. That's not to say that there _isn't_ an underlying, eternal objective morality that was put into place by a higher being. Maybe there is one, and maybe what's developing and changing is our ability to recognize what that eternal, objective morality is. I can't say for sure either way, and I don't think anyone else can either.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pt10023 said:


> As one possible answer, I think the desire to live in a fair and just society is a potential motivator. That could be based in compassion for other beings - I don't think a belief in God is necessary to feel empathy for another person's suffering. Or it could be motivated by self interest - the recognition that the long-term security and stability of a fair and just society is more advantageous than the short-term benefits of lying, stealing or other immoral acts. Again, that's just one possible answer.
> 
> With regard to the changeability of morality - I think our society's sense of morality is very changeable. 200 years ago, many people in our society thought slavery was morally acceptable. Today we do not. Our sense of morality develops as we develop. It's likely that in 100 years, things we now consider to be moral will be considered immoral. That's not to say that there _isn't_ an underlying, eternal objective morality that was put into place by a higher being. Maybe there is one, and maybe what's developing and changing is our ability to recognize what that eternal, objective morality is. I can't say for sure either way, and I don't think anyone else can either.


Ok, that's a thoughtful answer. Let's discuss stealing, as an example.

Is stealing immoral or is it just incompatible with living in a civil society? Are the two the same to the atheist?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

norton said:


> One could well argue that the major religions, especially Christianity, have historically had a somewhat varying sense of morality. Its just that institutions tend to change more slowly than individuals.


Reminds me of that scene where Mel Brooks drops one of the tablets and says, "I bring you these 15, ah, 10 Commandments!"


----------



## pt10023 (Jan 14, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Ok, that's a thoughtful answer. Let's discuss stealing, as an example.
> 
> Is stealing immoral or is it just incompatible with living in a civil society? Are the two the same to the atheist?


I don't know if the two would be the same to the atheist. I imagine different atheists would have different opinions. I do think that the answer to whether stealing is immoral, just incompatible with living in a civil society, or both, will depend on a person's underlying belief. I imagine that someone who believes that morality comes from a higher power could make a distinction between the two, say that the rules we create for our society are based on that underlying morality, and that we wouldn't be able to create those rules if a higher power didn't give us the underlying morality to base them on. Someone who does not believe in a higher power may believe that morality is a human construct, and that morality and the rules for living in a civil society are one and the same, and inform each other. At least that's what I suspect.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pt10023 said:


> I don't know if the two would be the same to the atheist. I imagine different atheists would have different opinions. I do think that the answer to whether stealing is immoral, just incompatible with living in a civil society, or both, will depend on a person's underlying belief. I imagine that someone who believes that morality comes from a higher power could make a distinction between the two, say that the rules we create for our society are based on that underlying morality, and that we wouldn't be able to create those rules if a higher power didn't give us the underlying morality to base them on. Someone who does not believe in a higher power may believe that morality is a human construct, and that morality and the rules for living in a civil society are one and the same, and inform each other. At least that's what I suspect.


I suspect you are right.

I would observe and further propose that rules for compatible living in a civil society are NOT solely internal constructs; which seems to cause a problem with the hypothesis presented in the thread. Therefore it is not found within the self, but imposed by our preferred external influence. We won't upset Phinn by discussing if the State is a "rule setting higher power" or not.


----------



## pt10023 (Jan 14, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I suspect you are right.
> 
> I would observe and further propose that rules for compatible living in a civil society are NOT solely internal constructs; which seems to cause a problem with the hypothesis presented in the thread. Therefore it is not found within the self, but imposed by our preferred external influence. We won't upset Phinn by discussing if the State is a "rule setting higher power" or not.


You may be right. But you may also be wrong. One could also observe and propose that what are now external constructs had to come from somewhere. What is now the State started off as an internal construct. What some of us call "God" may also have started off as an internal construct. We mere mortals can't say for sure.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pt10023 said:


> You may be right. But you may also be wrong. One could also observe and propose that what are now external constructs had to come from somewhere. What is now the State started off as an internal construct. What some of us call "God" may also have started off as an internal construct. We mere mortals can't say for sure.


"You may be right. I may be crazy!" :icon_smile_big:

If I were wrong; and what are now external constructs had to start first as internal constructs, then wouldn't one embrace the accusation of the following logic as circular rather than object to it? Wouldn't that be seen as a compliment by a "pure" atheist?

(NOTE: I am a huge fan of Lord Foppington's and I ask only out of philosophical curiosity not criticism.)



Lord Foppington said:


> Because there's such a thing as a source of moral authority from within. The best kind, not based on external compulsion!





Lord Foppington said:


> No, moral authority from within is based on my own best use of my reason and my judgment, neither of which is merely subjective.





Lord Foppington said:


> So the answer is, in a nutshell: socialization, as judged and assented to (or not) my own reason.


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> "You may be right. I may be crazy!" :icon_smile_big:
> 
> If I were wrong; and what are now external constructs had to start first as internal constructs, then wouldn't one embrace the accusation of the following logic as circular rather than object to it? Wouldn't that be seen as a compliment by a "pure" atheist?
> 
> (NOTE: I am a huge fan of Lord Foppington's and I ask only out of philosophical curiosity not criticism.)


Thanks for the kind words, ksinc. It's heartening that people who disagree politically can remain civil and friendly towards each other. Cheers to you!

Have to run now, will re-join the discussion in the coming days.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lord Foppington said:


> Thanks for the kind words, ksinc. It's heartening that people who disagree politically can remain civil and friendly towards each other. Cheers to you!
> 
> Have to run now, will re-join the discussion in the coming days.


Cheers!


----------



## Prisoner of Zendaline (Dec 8, 2008)

Well, I used to send up fervent prayers that the Communists would not take over France. The Communists failed. I've been the opposite of an Atheist ever since. Of course, I may need to resume prayer, in order to deliver France from something far worse than Communism....

In any event, I am advising you to not discuss religion in a business context, or with business associates. Now, you can truthfully say that you have been advised to refrain from discussions or disclosures of religion. People will assume you are Catholic.

But while you are in our region, you should get a good look around. You are at the epicenter of Evangelical Christianity. Christians in the Deep South go to extremes, to accept and care for EVERYBODY. Unfortunately, what works for religions is disastrous when carried over into government policy. Evangelical notions of inclusiveness have gotten us into the trouble we're in, all over the Western World. In the coming decades, as Western Civilization is swept away, you might enjoy reflecting upon your time in the place where all our problems began.


----------



## Prisoner of Zendaline (Dec 8, 2008)

Oh, and one very important point. After you have explained that you have been advised to not discuss religion, you should say: "But thank you for asking. It's very nice of you to care."


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

WA said:


> Carbon comes from life. Where did life come from?
> 
> And what is rocks, liquid, and vapor? Are these three not the same? Take water you can turn it into a vapor or a rock by temperature as anything else.


I don't really have time to add to this (quite interesting) discussion, but I wanted to clarify that carbon does NOT come from life. It's a fusion product from supernovae (as are all the trans-helium elements).

The reason you see it in living systems is because (i) it's pretty common and (ii) it allow tetrahedral bonding, the symmetry properties of which are necessary for an optical property of organic compounds called "chirality", which among other things allows enzymes to recognize proteins, and generally is an important symmetry feature in biopolymers (DNA, lipoproteins, and so on.) It's just an amazingly versatile element.

Silicon also allows tetrahedral bonding, and theoretically could serve as a basis for biochemistry... but silicon chemistry occurs at temperatures where water is a vapor, so bioreactivity is pretty much a nonstarter. Carbon (as you might surmise) permits chemistry to occur at the temperature of liquid water - the substrate of life, and protolife especially - and again shows how nicely suited it is for biology.

It's quite bad to make incorrect statements (carbon comes from life) and then use them as premises for arguments; in sentential logic this is known as a "false premise"... it's provable that any argument based on a false premise is logically valid, regardless of the truth (or falsehood) of the outcome. That is, if we base our arguments on inaccuracies (or lies), our conclusions tell us nothing!

DH


----------



## Herrsuit (Aug 4, 2009)

We have no idea what matter is (despite our impressive technical ability to measure and manipulate it). We have no idea what God is (if we allow any skepticism of texts written thousands of years ago). We have no idea what consciousness is or how it is causally related to the workings of the brain (we merely have correspondance). Professional linguists and philosophers have a hard time even describing how language works. I'm thus always confused by positive assertions about the nature of reality. It's as if nobody takes the time anymore to be intellectually conscientious--to just sit back and wonder.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Herrsuit said:


> We have no idea what matter is (despite our impressive technical ability to measure and manipulate it). We have no idea what God is (if we allow any skepticism of texts written thousands of years ago). We have no idea what consciousness is or how it is causally related to the workings of the brain (we merely have correspondance). Professional linguists and philosophers have a hard time even describing how language works. I'm thus always confused by positive assertions about the nature of reality. It's as if nobody takes the time anymore to be intellectually conscientious--to just sit back and wonder.


We've actually got a good enough idea of what matter is that we've been able to predict exotic particles well before we've found them within an almost absurd level of precision.

While exactly what consciousness IS is still hotly disputed, we can now use brain imaging to literally see dynamic structures in the brain and their behavior to stimuli, and (while we don't do it with humans - yet) we can genetically adjust a genome to produce specific behaviors in the resultant organism.

Just weeks ago I reviewed some very illuminating papers on the genetic mechanisms of innate grammar, and its relation to hand control.

We're figuring this stuff out in leaps and bounds.

What I don't understand is why people fear that knowledge of the world somehow undermines its poetry - or "wonder" as you put it. If I understand - at the level of biochemistry and genetics - WHY a flower is perceived as beautiful... does that somehow reduce my appreciation for it? I don't think so... indeed, I appreciate it more.

Learning doesn't dull the world's wonder, it enhances it.

DH


----------

