What do Atheists believe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My main concern with athiests is that in the absence of religion they seem to turn to other forms of man made groups for their sense of self and right and wrong. Not all, but some do and they seem to not understand that anything created by man is flawed and there will be no perfect world. Man will always act in their self interest. I hear some agnostics and atheist talk about their political parties, health groups, etc. as if these man made groups have all the answers. I think one thing religion teaches you is that you'll never live up to your ideals and you have to be ok with that and still believe and work to better yourself anyway.

That is your belief. Not everybody shares it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My main concern with athiests is that in the absence of religion they seem to turn to other forms of man made groups for their sense of self and right and wrong. Not all, but some do and they seem to not understand that anything created by man is flawed and there will be no perfect world. Man will always act in their self interest. I hear some agnostics and atheist talk about their political parties, health groups, etc. as if these man made groups have all the answers. I think one thing religion teaches you is that you'll never live up to your ideals and you have to be ok with that and still believe and work to better yourself anyway.

19:06 again. I believe I have a similar observation to 18:59. I think regardless of whether or not as an adult you accept god, it's helpful to have lessons in how to self discipline yourself and choose to do right regardless of influences of the world.

I used to be very naive and assume most people have a strong sense of doing the right thing, even when it is hard or involves sacrifice, but as I've gotten older, I've seen that that isn't the case. I do, however, see that the people who do live up to their values are people who were raised with a very strong sense of ethical obligation. In the case of atheists/agnostics I know, the ones I feel do live out their values and have a strong sense of ethics are ones who were raised with a strong religious presence but then later abandoned the notions of god(s) and the stories that go with that but kept the sense of self-discipline. And ethics does involve self-discipline, not in the sense of not being lazy, but in the sense of holding yourself to a standard even when it's tempting and easy to diverge from that standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Even if the cosmic justice system is made up? Sounds like you're saying it's better to fool people than to be honest --that most people can't be good on their own or by following the rules of society for which there are concrete rewards and punishments, so it's better to make up some "cosmic justice system" to keep them in line.

I'm guessing that in this system there are a few people in the know, the atheists and agnostics, who go along with it, not to upset the less sophisticated majority.

No. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying that people behave better if they think they'll be held accountable for even the things no one sees them do. Again, refer to the ring of gyges. And I'm not talking about a "less sophisticated majority." You are projecting. Even sophisticated people are more inclined to not do the right thing if no one is looking. It's one of the major issues in ethics. It's a problem with human nature. And yes, a belief in a higher power who will still know all you do does kind of keep people on the straight and narrow. It's harder to deal with the ring of gyges issue without religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My main concern with athiests is that in the absence of religion they seem to turn to other forms of man made groups for their sense of self and right and wrong. Not all, but some do and they seem to not understand that anything created by man is flawed and there will be no perfect world. Man will always act in their self interest. I hear some agnostics and atheist talk about their political parties, health groups, etc. as if these man made groups have all the answers. I think one thing religion teaches you is that you'll never live up to your ideals and you have to be ok with that and still believe and work to better yourself anyway.

That is your belief. Not everybody shares it.

There was no religious belief stated, only a concern. What "belief" are you referencing? Man is always tempted to act in their own self interest? Anything created by man is flawed and there is no perfect world? These are the only statements I made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My main concern with athiests is that in the absence of religion they seem to turn to other forms of man made groups for their sense of self and right and wrong. Not all, but some do and they seem to not understand that anything created by man is flawed and there will be no perfect world. Man will always act in their self interest. I hear some agnostics and atheist talk about their political parties, health groups, etc. as if these man made groups have all the answers. I think one thing religion teaches you is that you'll never live up to your ideals and you have to be ok with that and still believe and work to better yourself anyway.

????

I turn to philosophy for a sense of right and wrong, as well as my sense of self. And I find that my fellow non-believers are all too cognizant of human imperfection. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My main concern with athiests is that in the absence of religion they seem to turn to other forms of man made groups for their sense of self and right and wrong. Not all, but some do and they seem to not understand that anything created by man is flawed and there will be no perfect world. Man will always act in their self interest. I hear some agnostics and atheist talk about their political parties, health groups, etc. as if these man made groups have all the answers. I think one thing religion teaches you is that you'll never live up to your ideals and you have to be ok with that and still believe and work to better yourself anyway.

Religion is the #1 man-made group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My main concern with athiests is that in the absence of religion they seem to turn to other forms of man made groups for their sense of self and right and wrong. Not all, but some do and they seem to not understand that anything created by man is flawed and there will be no perfect world. Man will always act in their self interest. I hear some agnostics and atheist talk about their political parties, health groups, etc. as if these man made groups have all the answers. I think one thing religion teaches you is that you'll never live up to your ideals and you have to be ok with that and still believe and work to better yourself anyway.

Religion (Christianity at least) also teaches you that there's an imaginary man in the sky who is watching you and that his son died for you so you won't suffer in hell for eternity if you believe in him. I'm sure there are better ways to make people good citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Religion (Christianity at least) also teaches you that there's an imaginary man in the sky who is watching you and that his son died for you so you won't suffer in hell for eternity if you believe in him. I'm sure there are better ways to make people good citizens.

Agreed. Religion came out as a way to explain before science. To give people a sense of purpose and provide support when life felt hopeless. Religion divides people. If you're in one religion, you're not in another. I was raised protestant but am now an atheist. If there was some super powerful amazing being, they would not want you to worship them. Hopefully they would want you to be a better person and respect "their creation" but singing the praise of a deity is vain which we see in a President but I would not expect in a deity. Time of worship would be better spent learning life lessons of how to be better people not singing "Jesus loves me".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My main concern with athiests is that in the absence of religion they seem to turn to other forms of man made groups for their sense of self and right and wrong. Not all, but some do and they seem to not understand that anything created by man is flawed and there will be no perfect world. Man will always act in their self interest. I hear some agnostics and atheist talk about their political parties, health groups, etc. as if these man made groups have all the answers. I think one thing religion teaches you is that you'll never live up to your ideals and you have to be ok with that and still believe and work to better yourself anyway.

Religion is the #1 man-made group.

+1 -- It's a man-made group that professes that it's not a man-made group. It's a very special group that instructs people to look to the heavens for morality as if that must be better than anything humans could do on earth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't think most people are inherently good. I think most people don't go around murdering and stealing because they are brought up in a social context in which those things are clearly deemed as not just wrong but also things that will result in negative consequences.

If most people were good, we wouldn't need laws and police and the structure of civilization. It's been a long road to where we are now (modern, civilized society).

I also think you are misunderstanding my point. My point isn't that most people are lazy. My point is that most people are primarily concerned with their own self-interest, and that self-interest trumps any value they claim to have. So they'll do the right thing so long as it aligns with their own self-interest (or perhaps they know doing the wrong thing will result in severe consequences).

The extremes that people mention (murder, stealing, etc.) are things that have pretty strong potential consequences (jail time). That's a pretty strong motivating factor for a lot of people (not all, though). Where it gets murkier is in the day to day stuff and the interpersonal stuff that isn't illegal (adultery, betrayal, workplace politics/dynamics, friendships, school). That's where it really becomes clear if a person just talks the talk about ethics or walks the walk.

I do think that it takes a very strong moral code for people to choose the right thing in many situations that arise in those contexts, things that don't involve criminal behavior but are in fact ethical questions.

I used to be very naive and assume most people have a strong sense of doing the right thing, even when it is hard or involves sacrifice, but as I've gotten older, I've seen that that isn't the case. I do, however, see that the people who do live up to their values are people who were raised with a very strong sense of ethical obligation. In the case of atheists/agnostics I know, the ones I feel do live out their values and have a strong sense of ethics are ones who were raised with a strong religious presence but then later abandoned the notions of god(s) and the stories that go with that but kept the sense of self-discipline. And ethics does involve self-discipline, not in the sense of not being lazy, but in the sense of holding yourself to a standard even when it's tempting and easy to diverge from that standard.

I think that's why so many people find religion when they have kids. It's because it's the easiest way to really start out with that kind of disciplined view of morality, especially for young kids who aren't yet equipped to fully understand the why behind ethical concepts.

That's not to say there aren't alternatives, but religion is kind of the easiest way to go about it. That's what I'm saying.

This would make sense if the social context existed before the first human came along. But this is clearly false. If you look at history, the social context evolved along with the physical and intellectual evolution of humans. There are of course periods in human's evolution where certain new inventions or discoveries brings about a period of accelerated evolution, the proliferation of religion is one of these. Therefore, the social context you speak of is just another aspect of human knowledge that older generations passes down to their offspring. And like all other types of human knowledge, religious beliefs are similarly susceptible to the decay of time and fluidity of language.

As to why we have written laws - it's the same why we have written text books, so that we can teach these things to others without having them rediscover everything all over again. Laws are also a social contract, whereby members of a society agrees to live together with certain understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. It's exactly the same reason why we have rules in games like tic-tac-toe. There is nothing magical about any of this, nothing that needs a supernatural origin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My main concern with athiests is that in the absence of religion they seem to turn to other forms of man made groups for their sense of self and right and wrong. Not all, but some do and they seem to not understand that anything created by man is flawed and there will be no perfect world. Man will always act in their self interest. I hear some agnostics and atheist talk about their political parties, health groups, etc. as if these man made groups have all the answers. I think one thing religion teaches you is that you'll never live up to your ideals and you have to be ok with that and still believe and work to better yourself anyway.

Religion is also "man-made."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My main concern with athiests is that in the absence of religion they seem to turn to other forms of man made groups for their sense of self and right and wrong. Not all, but some do and they seem to not understand that anything created by man is flawed and there will be no perfect world. Man will always act in their self interest. I hear some agnostics and atheist talk about their political parties, health groups, etc. as if these man made groups have all the answers. I think one thing religion teaches you is that you'll never live up to your ideals and you have to be ok with that and still believe and work to better yourself anyway.

That is your belief. Not everybody shares it.

There was no religious belief stated, only a concern. What "belief" are you referencing? Man is always tempted to act in their own self interest? Anything created by man is flawed and there is no perfect world? These are the only statements I made.

You say "in the absence of religion..." and refer to "man made". "One thing religion teaches you.."

I suppose I should have said not everyone shares your thoughts. Or your concerns with people "turning to man made groups."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My main concern with athiests is that in the absence of religion they seem to turn to other forms of man made groups for their sense of self and right and wrong. Not all, but some do and they seem to not understand that anything created by man is flawed and there will be no perfect world. Man will always act in their self interest. I hear some agnostics and atheist talk about their political parties, health groups, etc. as if these man made groups have all the answers. I think one thing religion teaches you is that you'll never live up to your ideals and you have to be ok with that and still believe and work to better yourself anyway.

Wait a minute. What is it you continue to believe in?

Do you think agnostics and atheists don't work to better themselves?
If so, why?

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm. Two-thirds of non-religious Americans believe the country has a duty to accept refugees.

Only a quarter of evangelicals do.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/politics/wp/2018/05/24/the-group-least-likely-to-think-the-u-s-has-a-responsibility-to-accept-refugees-evangelicals/?utm_term=.0a48dbf5004f&__twitter_impression=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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!".

I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't think most people are inherently good. I think most people don't go around murdering and stealing because they are brought up in a social context in which those things are clearly deemed as not just wrong but also things that will result in negative consequences.

If most people were good, we wouldn't need laws and police and the structure of civilization. It's been a long road to where we are now (modern, civilized society).

I also think you are misunderstanding my point. My point isn't that most people are lazy. My point is that most people are primarily concerned with their own self-interest, and that self-interest trumps any value they claim to have. So they'll do the right thing so long as it aligns with their own self-interest (or perhaps they know doing the wrong thing will result in severe consequences).

The extremes that people mention (murder, stealing, etc.) are things that have pretty strong potential consequences (jail time). That's a pretty strong motivating factor for a lot of people (not all, though). Where it gets murkier is in the day to day stuff and the interpersonal stuff that isn't illegal (adultery, betrayal, workplace politics/dynamics, friendships, school). That's where it really becomes clear if a person just talks the talk about ethics or walks the walk.

I do think that it takes a very strong moral code for people to choose the right thing in many situations that arise in those contexts, things that don't involve criminal behavior but are in fact ethical questions.

I used to be very naive and assume most people have a strong sense of doing the right thing, even when it is hard or involves sacrifice, but as I've gotten older, I've seen that that isn't the case. I do, however, see that the people who do live up to their values are people who were raised with a very strong sense of ethical obligation. In the case of atheists/agnostics I know, the ones I feel do live out their values and have a strong sense of ethics are ones who were raised with a strong religious presence but then later abandoned the notions of god(s) and the stories that go with that but kept the sense of self-discipline. And ethics does involve self-discipline, not in the sense of not being lazy, but in the sense of holding yourself to a standard even when it's tempting and easy to diverge from that standard.

I think that's why so many people find religion when they have kids. It's because it's the easiest way to really start out with that kind of disciplined view of morality, especially for young kids who aren't yet equipped to fully understand the why behind ethical concepts.

That's not to say there aren't alternatives, but religion is kind of the easiest way to go about it. That's what I'm saying.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I don't agree with all of what you say. I do believe there are people who cannot navigate morality on their own and need guidance and religion may indeed be a shortcut. It may very well be the majority of people, I don't know. But the atheists I personally know who are most moral were never exposed to religion. And some theists I know just don't have the impetus to change things now, because they believe god will take care of it later. They are lazy in the sense they have given up their role to what they believe is the ultimate dispenser of justice and that will happen on judgement day. Prayers are enough for them to feel they've done something proactive. Maybe we just know different people.

Like others have said, laws serve the purpose of controlling the behaviors of those who act selfishly in their own interest, god isn't necessary to have a system for justice that includes negative consequences. The things that aren't illegal that you mention have consequences as well - personal and societal.