Who is more likely to commit a heinous act? A man threatened by retaliation from the law or a man threatened by retaliation from both the law and the eternal punishment of his Pantheon?
L < L+P
0 < P
except that P can be negative, in the case of a religious directive to commit a heinous act. Also consider the implications of personal motivation, which in the case of religion requires a connection to a religion, which implies a separation from religion that must be overcome.
L+M ? L+P-S
Of course, the idea of an afterlife and its conditions could be interpreted differently to a personal conviction. But this would be a mistake, for many reasons. Belief in deities and belief in afterlife are separate, the two can exist(or not) independently of each other. Betrayal of personal conviction is a destruction and mutilation of the self, and just as condemning as eternal pain. The perpetuation of one's presence occurs regardless of afterlife, and while limited, is everything one has, maintaining one's reputation is equally important whether one is maintaining a reputation with a deity or if they are maintaining it with their peers.
So it all comes down to the relative intentions of motivation and doctrine, and the difficulties in interpretation, which affect religion more diligently due the religion originating beyond the self...
Without a religion, where does one acquire any basis for one's morality? Certainly, murder is "wrong," but why is this?
Biological and environmental conditioning state that murder is wrong, however they also state that society is righteous, which is used to justify sanctioned murder in the form of punishments and warfare. "Murder is wrong" most assuredly is not certain...
One can logically conclude that a purpose is desirable, and therefore quest for a purpose. One can logically conclude that obviously false purposes are flawed, which will result in inaccuracies which ideally should not be tolerated, and will obscure any genuine purposes that may be encountered. Therefore a true moral imperative is to seek understanding in the hopes of determining a true purpose. This leads to obvious implications. Preservation is preferable to change, exploration is preferable to stagnation, coordination is preferable to competition. Conflicts should be resolved by analysing the impact of various actions and proceeding with the most probable scenario for attaining the final goal...
Or you could just draw your purpose from science, but that language is too horrific to utter here.
If one say's "Because I know it's wrong," how can that hold more weight than "I know it's wrong plus Zeus forbids it?"
My third step-cousin's wife had a 'divine experience' with Zeus, I have been looking for a way to get back at him for that...
Humanity is flawed - thus the mistaken "belief" in a higher power that supposedly knows better (or demands better regardless of reason) is most certainly a higher ground than merely "I believe" or "Society believes."
Humanity is flawed therefore they were created by something perfect, or made flawed by something else created by something perfect.
[sarcasm]That makes so much sense that
[/sarcasm] it hurts. Higher ground is useless if it is so unstable that it collapses before you can reach it...
Furthermore, there are different conceptions on what murder even is. A nation can't supply the moral "backbone," so to speak, as to why this is. People are far more likely to disagree with a Government's mandates than a God's.
Nations can, and do, from executions to deathcamps to wars to abortions, to free medicine, nations place values on life all the time, and are respected for it. Nations are more powerful than gods, gods are just buried under so many layers of fanfiction that nobody realises it...
Look at it this way, people in the United States have this odd notion that religions should be treated with respect - even other Atheists mouth this rhetoric - why?
Last I heard they had this ridiculous obsession with freedom...
People lend more weight to a religion just by virtue of the fact that so many people claim to believe it.
There are perfectly valid explanations for it, it seems certain that people would have religion regardless of whether there were any gods...
I am perhaps not the appropriate man to voice this philosophy, what with my somewhat inadequate communication skills, but I think the truth behind this is fairly evident - if there is someone who could better voice this, I would gladly defer to them.
I apologise if I have misinterpreted anything, my own skills are somewhat lacking, but I do hope to uncover some measure of truth from such conversations...
Author
Topic: Atheists (Read 409982 times)