Atheist but culturally religious?

[stromboli]

In spite of/because of. We've had the morality debate several times on the forum. The answer always comes back that morality is a component of evolution, a necessary survival trait for social groups. As far as I'm concerned this entire thread is simply belaboring a non issue.

[josephpalazzo]

I vote that from now on any thread on "morality" should be directed to "Enter The Darkness"

[jonb]

In talking about atheist ethics, for sure there is a spectrum of views, rather than a block with hard and fast edges. However although there are random blips that don't fit the norm I think I can identify differences between a general group of atheists and a general group of say christards.
For instance in sexual politics among atheists there maybe arguments as to what level we have to set a mark that gives equality between the sexes, but hardly ever is an argument put forward that of biological difference leading to superiority. In fact should such an argument be put forward among atheists the person saying it might look quite outside the normal spectrum. However on religious sights this argument will be encountered often.
Similarly on a subject like sexual orientation most atheists seem to have very little to no problems with others sexual orientation, even in church of England circles which is about as near a religious organisation can get to not having a belief, sexual orientation is still a very thorny subject.

Broadly I find atheists quite accepting of difference. True in America where atheism is a minority view it could be put forward that the atheist acceptance of minorities is out of pure self interest, they are a minority and so am I, however I find this same acceptance of otherness is true of atheists in Britain and Europe where they often live in communities where non-believers are in the majority. Christians may mouth an acceptance of difference, but behind the scenes I often hear quite other views expressed.

So although atheist views might over lap with other people it seems to me atheist and christard ethics are like this scatter pattern of red and green dots

true they may seem to overlap but they do also seem to cover slightly different areas. That difference I find interesting.

Atheists and christards share the same evolution so that could not explain a difference. Does that difference then come from belief or lack of it? Or could it be that the mindset of somebody that accepts there is no god is different to that of believers?

[Baruch]

In spite of/because of. We've had the morality debate several times on the forum. The answer always comes back that morality is a component of evolution, a necessary survival trait for social groups. As far as I'm concerned this entire thread is simply belaboring a non issue.

I think that humans are overly ... self congratulatory.  Morality and immorality are equally necessary for survival.  Otherwise by now we should have all evolved into Mahatmas.  For example, in some circumstances, it is absolutely to my benefit to murder certain people ... with or without the Decalogue or the power of the State.  I simply don't think there are any hard and fast rules, that will survive any and all circumstances.  And I don't think the typical situation of a family having dinner at Denny's, where extreme action is usually uncalled for .. can rule out extreme action in all circumstances ... unless of course your family lives at the Denny's ;-)

[Baruch]

I vote that from now on any thread on "morality" should be directed to "Enter The Darkness"

Do you equate ethics with morality?  If you do, and ban ethics too ... well that says something about you that you might not want to admit to.

[Baruch]

jonb ... on the original topic.  I am sure that statisticians would agree with your Big Data analysis ... but they may be selling their own product.  I am not sure that statistical analysis, in the absence of some cause-effect ... is useful ... other than providing a foil for unconscious assumption.  On the other hand, correlation isn't causation.  Both aspects of .. atheism and open mindedness, might share a common origin, rather than be a cause of each other.  And I think that is where I would intuitively come down.  People who are at least comfortable with alternative beliefs and behaviors, even if not actual practitioners of such ... probably will be open to both LGBT and atheism/agnosticism/secularism ... since both are contrary to the average trend of societies.  You might also be likely to find people who also embrace more extreme politics ... like anarchism or socialism.  In a word, different bohemians of the same Left Bank, tend to be found in the same gay bars ... partly because pre-Internet, there was no other way for them to meet, outside of society's disapproving eye.

[jonb]

 To answer your last post I will use this

I think that humans are overly ... self congratulatory.  Morality and immorality are equally necessary for survival.  Otherwise by now we should have all evolved into Mahatmas.  For example, in some circumstances, it is absolutely to my benefit to murder certain people ... with or without the Decalogue or the power of the State.  I simply don't think there are any hard and fast rules, that will survive any and all circumstances.  And I don't think the typical situation of a family having dinner at Denny's, where extreme action is usually uncalled for .. can rule out extreme action in all circumstances ... unless of course your family lives at the Denny's ;-)

This is the sort of view that might be expected from a person that calls themselves a freethinker and has thought through the repercussions of that stance.

As an artist who sat on the left bank, one of the things I know is that humans seem programmed to notice difference but find it difficult to notice their own similarities with others. You as an American would find it easy to identify the similarities of a group of Brits sitting round a table, but they would say no we are not similar at all I'm a cockney he's a Scott, and we don't talk about Taffy.

Given this it is not surprising my wish to explore the ethical commonalities that might be present in a group or groups of atheists has been met with such reticence, but as a person who likes learning about how different sets of people think and work I can't help but push this a little.

[Baruch]

Pushy are we?

I simply prefer to consider all the data and all the alternatives upon that data, before I let my prejudice out of its box.  That is the problem with intuition and spontaneous reaction ... unless these are very refined skills, it is unlikely that all data and all alternatives upon that data have been considered.  Unless you need to jump in a lake to save someone drowning ... and that might be a bad choice if you can't swim ... we generally are not under time pressure.

As explained in a post many posts ago ... I tend to consider many things on an ongoing basis, as I live my life, as they occur to me.  Then as later occasion arises I am free to open the gap between my unconscious and conscious minds and let her rip ... no not flatulence!  Simply put, I try to not get in my own way ... my consciousness will get in the way more than it will help, if I micromanage.  That and I edit a little before I post.

So the question remains, do rational people have any ethics in common, or it all situational and lovey-dovey?

[jonb]

Pushy are we?

So the question remains, do rational people have any ethics in common, or it all situational and lovey-dovey?

There is another alternative, that being rational, a person is open to the situation and can modify instead of only being able to impose a standard set of values on any event. It seems to me there are people who want and impose simple sets of rules that do not take factors into account so they can save themselves the bother about thinking over issues. Given that I am with Socrates



that the 'unexamined life is not worth living'.

[Baruch]

No argument from me.  I have visited the site of his prison, and his "ghost" told me so.

[josephpalazzo]

Do you equate ethics with morality?  If you do, and ban ethics too ... well that says something about you that you might not want to admit to.

No, ethics is about rules of conduct in society. We need that. Society needs that. Morality is your own sense of right and wrong, and just like religion, you should keep that to yourself.

[Baruch]

Cool, I thought that was what you meant ;-)

Now on to ethics ... ain't gonna happen ;-(

[jonb]

No argument from me.  I have visited the site of his prison, and his "ghost" told me so.

Well I used him in my history exam.

PS
have you noticed how our dear little joseph pushes the ISIS view?
One world control under one set of laws
A refusal to allow his authority to be examined.
And now that it is OK to doubt as long as it is never mentioned or discussed in public.

[Baruch]

I try to avoid "personalizing" ... just directing praise or blame for "people like X" ... if the shoe fits, it isn't my problem.  I just accused Joe and Strom of being Monsanto employees ... but it is tongue in cheek ... even if they were, I don't have anything against their employees ... "dey vas only followink orders!".

The best recent take on Socrates is The Hemlock Cup by Bettany Hughes ... the new women historians, and some not so new ... have really done a good job.  Of course Ms Hughes is a classics major from GB.

People come in many shapes and sizes, physically and mentally.  It is best to be open minded, even with those who tempt you not to be.  It could always be a simple misunderstanding, not something categorical.

[jonb]

I like your precision, as I am one who tends to only paint with a broad brush I need those little highlights.