Forum Index
»
Religion
Charities get evaluated under charity Navigator and other third-party organizations to figure out how much money is going to overhead and other expenses and how much actually directly goes to benefit people in need. Churches and Temples have no such obligations to disclose their finances. Or they may only disclose to members. So it's not really fair to claim a religious group is actually a charity because you don't really know how much money is going into the pastor's pocket and how much is actually going to help the needy. Has Osteen ever revealed his finances? |
They are making terrible, cruel, and unjust choices. They are bringing more pain into the world. They are treating others as objects. This is true whether or not you also believe that there will be otherwordly retribution. I feel a stronger compulsion (myself, maybe not the same for you) to address these inequities int his world because of that. |
|
I think I'm honestly disturbed by people who are convinced that the only reason they want to act like a good person is because of some great cosmic award and not because it is inherently wrong lie, rape steal or cheat.
It reminds me of how we use sticker charts to teach children how to do their chores and ultimately we hope that children will learn to do their chores without needing external reward, because they understand the intrinsic benefit of cleaning their room. |
They may think that because their religion has taught them that, but I think the majority of people would do the right thing most of the time without religion. |
But even look at this thread. Adults are asking in all seriousness why anyone would give to charity or not lie, steal, or murder if they don't believe in god. |
I’ll address this, as a longtime atheist who grew up religious. My entire life, until I was no longer religious as an adult, God was intricately woven into my concept of morality. God and his “Word” were the final, undeniable answer to why you do or do not do x, y, or z. I had no idea what “made” an atheist a morally upstanding person without the promise of heaven/fear of hell. It wasn’t until I was a seasoned atheist that I realized that god(s) as moral compass is like a veneer over the basic decency and sense of morality that most people naturally possess. I believe that this morality stems from empathy. But that veneer is all that some people can see. Since they’ve always lived with it they don’t necessarily understand that goodness and morality can, and do, exist without it. |
That's not what people are suggesting. I'm the agnostic who wrote the long post. No, I'm not suggesting the only reason people wouldn't do bad things is because of god. What I'm saying is that most people will do the right thing when it's EASY to do the right thing and/or when the right thing doesn't work against their self-interest. The difficult part is whether or not people do the right thing when it's hard to do so, when it would mean significant sacrifice on their part, when it's against their self-interest, and/or when no one will find out if they do the wrong thing. In philosophy, it's often discussed in relation to the ring of gyges. I've met a lot of people who talk a good game about what's right, but I've seen that when it comes down to their own self-interest, if they can get away with not doing what is right and it benefits them, they choose that path (doing the wrong thing). The people who will do what is right, even when it hurts to do so, are the people who have a very strong moral code and a strong sense of obligation to that code. Those people are few and far between (religious, atheist, or otherwise). I do think that for society, it is good to have some sense of a cosmic justice system, a notion that even if no one is looking, you will still be held accountable for doing wrong actions. On the whole, that helps people who don't think critically about ethics, who don't have a very well-developed sense of morality, and who don't have the self-discipline to hold themselves to the values they espouse. I know atheists who have ideas about ethics, but when it comes down to their own actions, they basically do what has the net gain for them (i.e., most benefit with lowest risk of negative consequences). That's not to say there aren't plenty of religious hypocrites out there. But all of the people on here who wax eloquent about justice and compassion and helping their fellow man, I wonder, beyond throwing some money at charitable organizations, how that plays out in their daily lives. Most people hope for the best, but they're content acting in their self-interest as long as they and their own come out okay. The challenge of a society with majority atheists will be to instill a strong enough sense of obligation to other people and to ethical principles to overcome self-centeredness. It's not that religion does it perfectly, but it at least offers some sort of framework, some higher cause. I'm all for humanism, but the only people I've met who are committed to it enough for it to guide their everyday actions are people who have a strong sense of duty. Usually, they are people who are atheists/agnostic now but grew up in a religion in which that sense of duty was ingrained in them. So while they may no longer believe in the god or gods of that religion, the sense of duty and obligation and importance of morality have remained and inform their daily actions. |
Cosign. That's it. Nothing more. |
That's an interesting point. People are also inherently lazy. It's hard enough to organize a group of like minded individuals when they have a common goal, like getting PTA volunteers. The benefit of religion is a community, where the benefits of participation are both social - hanging out with like minded friends and ostensibly rewarding in a religious sense - points for good behavior. There is more incentive to actively do good works. That said, I think you can be a be a "good" and ethical person without helping your fellow humans just by doing no harm. I do believe on the whole most people are good and that is because the majority of us are not psych/sociopaths. I wonder if there's not some sort of brain wiring that makes some of us crave rules and authority. That's one of the first things that drove me from organized religion: rules. Rules that seemed arbitrary and overly concrete. As that crumbled, the other tenets of religion started to make less and less sense. But back to your point, it's also easier to leave the thinking up to someone else, the cosmic authority says so. It's like the kid who doesn't want to do something and blames it on his parents, "My dad would be so mad at me!". |
That does not answer OP. Atheism being definitionally the absence of theism, does not mean that exhausts what any given atheist believes. EG Karl Marx was an atheist. But he was ALSO a dialectical materialist and an historical determinist. He had many specific beliefs - though many other atheists did not and do not share them. |
Yes it does because it is the only thing all atheists believe. Some are also vegetarian, some are hockey fans and some are even republicans. |
So OP needs to ask a better question, because that is the one thing all Atheists have in common. |
Agree, but to indulge OP a bit I would venture to say that many atheists by not believing in a deity also don't believe that there is an afterlife. So whatever is done on this earth is it. No rewards/punishments after we leave this mortal coil. |
Many but not all. You can be athiest and Buddhist. So OP ask what do you believe and most only say what they don't believe. A few have said I believe this is it, everything science can explain I believe and nothing else. Which is weird because research scientist all believe there is stuff we have not discovered which is why they are trying to discover it. |
Why don't you explain what you believe instead of trying to answer for all/other Atheists. |