The main thing that bothers me about it is the use of the word “godless.” If I had to use a “g-word” at all, I’d prefer “god-free.” I realize that their use of the word is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I think it buys in too much to the negative labels that the god-equipped tend to manufacture for us.

But I’d rather not use the “g-word” at all.  It’s irrelevant to my life.  I’m not “anti-god” any more than I am anti-invisible-pink-unicorn, anti-aliens-from-the-planet-Zog, anti-mysterious-supernatural-energies, anti-Zeus, or anti-Mickey-Mouse. 

What cracks me up is when religious people express surprise that someone can have a moral system without a supernatural being behind it.  It’s as if there’s this whole group of people on crutches, being amazed that I can walk on my own.  They’re welcome to their crutches, of course, but I’m not going to live my life being labeled “crutchless.” I just walk, that’s all.  Nothing to it.  But I’ll fight anyone who tries to make me pay for someone else’s crutches, or who tries to insist that my kids can’t walk without them.  (And PLEASE, spare me the “moment of hobbling” in the schools.)

If you’re looking for a similar organization to support, my hubby and I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which includes members of religious groups as well.  I find it to be a lot less “shrill” than some other groups.

I’ve used the analogy of crutches before myself, but your use of it here is very clever indeed. I hadn’t even thought of it in those terms myself.

I agree that the word “godless” isn’t ideal, but then “god-free” probably isn’t much better. To the believers it still sounds like we’re acknowledging that gods exist and are just in denial. I can’t really think of anything better to use, though, so I suppose it’ll have to do.

As for American’s United, I’m already a big fan and support them when I am able. I have a button made for them, but I notice I haven’t added it to the site yet. Will have to correct that.

GeekMom,,,

What cracks me up is when religious people express surprise that someone can have a moral system without a supernatural being behind it.

just being inquisitive,,,,, but where do you beleive the “moral system” of an atheist or any person comes from?  what defines an action as moral, and another action as immoral?  who or what do you feel makes the determination?

again, i am not heading into a debate or confrontation, just asking.

les,,,

so to an atheist, my faith in God, no matter how lived, is viewed simply as a crutch?  if so do you see people that call themselves believers as crippled because of that belief, or people that are strong, but unnessisarily relying on the cruth of their faith?

Randall,

“Morals systems” are defined by whoever has a certain amount of authority over you (or at least have your ear for the discussion), and tells you that certain actions are moral or immoral.

Your church, your government, your parents, your teachers, and your friends may tell you that something is immoral.

Your employer says that making personal calls is wrong. It’s stealing from the company. Some people listen.

In Michigan, many types of sex were illegal until the ‘80s--because they were immoral. Such morality laws still exist on the books in many places.

A church may say that drinking is immoral. Others might say that it isn’t. The US majority said that it was immoral when they passed prohibition. They changed their mind when they repealed it. Lots of people have their own opinion on whether drinking is moral or not, regardless of their religious affiliations.

And of course, you may have your own opinions of what is moral or not. Should a severely mentally injured woman in Florida be kept alive? Did God have to give you the answer? (If so, God gives different people different answers.)

Religion (and God) is a great source for morals: Do unto others; love thy neighbor; turn the other cheek, and so on...but it isn’t the only source.

If there were no God, and we had always known this, then there would still be behaviors that were not acceptable to a species of varied thinking people...being gay, freely having sex, and drinking would probably still be wrong to some percentage of the people...and killing and cheating others would still be frowned on by a large majority.

God can provide us with rules and clues. We can ask for an answer and maybe get one...but even without God, we would still have our intelligence and our wisdom to help us decide what is “right” and to keep chaos from ensuing.

JethricOne said it very nicely:

“Morals systems” are defined by whoever has a certain amount of authority over you (or at least have your ear for the discussion), and tells you that certain actions are moral or immoral.

Your church, your government, your parents, your teachers, and your friends may tell you that something is immoral.

We, as humans, make up the rules of how we interact with each other.  That’s why they’re often inconsistent.  They change with time, with circumstances ("oh, well, yes, you shouldn’t kill unless they’re going to kill you first, or you think they have weapons of mass destruction, or ..."), with geography, with culture, and with experience. 

When you’re a child, the authoritative source of these rules is usually your parents.  When you get older, your peer group exerts more influence over you.  And when you’re old enough even to rebel against members of your peer group, it takes a bigger hammer of authority to “provide” you with rules that someone else thinks you should have.

Enter the supernatural being, the über-parent, if you will.  When you’re too old to listen to threats of punishment by your parents, and when the disapproval of your neighbors isn’t enough to dissuade you from your behavior, and you’re not impressed by the government, what’s left to keep you in line?  A bigger, badder parent, with threats of punishment going on even after this life. 

But first and foremost, morals originate in our own minds, as a result of feedback that we get from socializing with our fellow humans.  We learn what’s frowned upon and what’s tolerated; what’s dependent on context and what is more or less agreed on everywhere, all the time.  What keeps us behaving morally (when we do) is our need to fit in with society; we don’t need an extra parent standing by with a cosmic paddle.  (That is, unless someone is trying to impose his idea of an absolute rule on you that you just don’t agree with.)

Randall, I obviously can’t speak for all atheists, but I’d agree with the latter description you provide. I view belief in God as an unnecessary crutch. I’ve also described it as being like a security blanket.

hehehehe her’s a link to drive you over the top Les http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html?=rss

“A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists.”

“Dr Stephen Unwin has used a 200-year-old formula to calculate the probability of the existence of an omnipotent being. Bayes’ Theory is usually used to work out the likelihood of events, such as nuclear power failure, by balancing the various factors that could affect a situation. “

Yeah, I read about that the other day. I think the only reason I didn’t comment about it is because I’ve had first hand experience with nuts like this guy.

Way back when I used to work as a Desktop Publishing guy for a local Kinko’s I had a regular customer who’d come in and have me typeset stuff for him all the time. He’d have me make up business cards that contained a lengthy algorithm that he claimed proved God existed. He’d stand there while I was trying to work and go through a really complicated explanation of what each part of it represented and why and how it all calculated out to the number 1 which is God.

The guy was very sincere, but it was clear from more than just this claim that he wasn’t playing with a complete deck. He was harmless as far as nuts go and seem appreciative to have someone listen to his theories for a short while. He always left me slightly bemused and after awhile I started looking forward to his biweekly visits where he’d explain his latest developments.

According to the article, “...the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing...”

I’m afraid that from a logic perspective, the “200 year-old formula” begins with a divide by zero in the first step.

I can’t totally take the high ground regarding their proof technique, as I tried even more creative techniques in a vain attempt to pass 4th term honors calc. :-D

One can have a code of morality without the threat of the great cosmic ass whipping when they die.

Rather than trying to keep up with an ever expanding pile of rules, regulations, and judgements which often conflict with each other anyway, a very simple one rule philosophy can handle everything.  It does not need to be updated for the emergance of new sects of society, politically correct issues d’jour, or technological advancements.  It applies equally to everyone.

Put yourself in someone else’s position you selfish bastards!  If it will hurt, don’t do it unless it is going to stop or prevent a greater hurt.

1 rule, 0 gods, all bases covered.

Of course if we were to adopt this as the basis for morality and rule in society, we would have to find a way to support all the soon to be unemployed lawyers.