All you atheist parents wondering how to broach the religion topic to your kids listen up!

[Rhubarb]

I'm a catholic and I teach my kids about all religions. I explain that some people believe different things and some people don't believe at all. I tell them what the Bible says about creation and what science says.

I tell them what my personal beliefs are but I encourage them to make their own minds up. I answer questions with "well this is what I believe but you might think something different".

I take them to Church and they know about the religion we follow, but I do encourage questions as far as I can bearing in mind their young ages.

So what I say to you is this. Don't put a barrier between yourselves and religion when it comes to your kids. Arm them with information and let them make their own minds up. If you push them a certain way, chances are that they'll reject it later on in life. Whereas if you add your support to whatever they decide to believe or not, it will give them the confidence to choose their own paths.

You may be disappointed in their choices but don't try to influence them too strongly one way or the other.

So says me.

I wasnt questioning why or if you had a moral code. I know you do, everyone does. I dont claim enlightnment! I was just trying to figure out something that I wonder from time to time.

No-one answered (asfar as I can see) what happens when morals collide for atheists? I'm genuinely interested in how you deal with that, because I see a philosopical issue.

If I have my code, and you have yours. And we have both made up ourselves - then how do we deal with each other when they are mutually exclusive?

I thought MN was a safe place to ask this question. When I asked about mornal absolute for athiests a few weeks ago, the few replies I got said that basically there werent any.

I'd LOVE to know what your absolutes are and how you decided them. How do you justify your abslutes to yourself.

I do it through my faith system. People with no faith system must have a way to do this. I've had faith most of my adult life, so have never realy thought aboutit for an atheist.

I'm genuinely asking for information, not to be shot down (again) for what I think is true.

Harrisey: what exactly do you mean by "when moral codes collide"? Because the universal moral codes broadly accepted by rational and superstitious alike: it's wrong to murder people for fun, it's wrong to take what does not belong to you - don't seem to collide all that much.
Now there are times when individuals (or mobs) feel it's ok to do things they would previoulsy have described as immoral. For instance, the prohibition on murder often gets overlooked by the superstitious when it's a matter of killing "unbelievers".
Is that the sort of thing you are talking about? Or is it more that the rational spend a lot less time flapping about, for instance, the length of other people's hair/clothing or their dietary practices(MN sausage roll believers exempted of course)?

Maybe I am being stupid but I am not sure what you mean by your question when morals colide? Do you mean situations where there are grey areas?

I think all situations have to be dealt with as they occur. My general guide as such (I dont exactly keep a writen copy) is that I have to put my kids first in all things, they rely on me- more so than most of course due to their SN (2 of my 3 are sn). After that, i go for a greatest good approach. I won't harm my family- so if it were a choice of buy fairtrade products (for example) and go over budget i wouldn't do that but if I could rejig the budget i would, as I want my life to have as little negative impact on others as possible.

After my children, my guiding principle is life and equity. I dont steal, or lie iof I can help it, although I owuld not risk life by doing so- i would steal to eat certainly. Would I kill to protect my kids? Certainly, would I kill to protect my home? No. Its just briocks and mortar. there are other homes, other lives.

Oh for heavens sake, you wrote: "Why bother with a moral code, with love, with beauty, with patience and kindnes, with looking out for anyone else why not just enjoy yourself"

I said, in reply:
Harrissey, I think you have a really warped idea of enjoyment. Is a life without love or kindness or empathy really your idea of an enjoyable life? If it is, I think you are a very strange - and not very nice - person.

Please note the use of the word 'if', and I completely stand by it. If you think that living without love, beauty, patience and kindness is your definition of 'enjoying yourself' then you are a very strange person indeed. Indeed you are so strange you are a psychopath. If, on the other hand, you accept that a life without love etc would be thoroughly horrible, then maybe you are beginning to understand why even people who don't believe in sky gods like to have love, beauty etc in their lives. Because they are intrinsically pleasurable and make life more enjoyable.
And I haven't a clue what you mean about moral codes colliding. I really haven't.

So you say you do things because 'I think this is the best way to live'....so why do you think it is impossible for those without superstitious beliefs to do exactly the same?
I do find it pretty offensive the way some religious people assume that those without these kinds of beliefs are utterly amoral or even immoral.

There is an interesting point here regarding absolutes and moral absolutes. I dont have any absolutes because i dont believe there are such things. As an example, I dont think it right for one person to kill another person whatever the circumstances but that doesnt mean it wont ever happen.

A absolute is irrational in that sense. I feel the same about the abuse of children - because i think it shouldnt happen doesnt mean it wont. A law of the universe - otherwise known as a Scientific Should (not an demanding Should) - that things will happen because they happen and no amount of 'absoluting' from me makes a bit of difference apart from to keep me miserable.

And i would rather be happy, so i will stick with my preferences, not absolutes, on how i want the world to work.

In answer to the query about clashing moral codes i would imagine it's exactly same as two people from different religions meeting - they do not all share their values. But how would you know? Unless you can read minds of course.

My moral absolutes are determined by my conscience. I tend to make my judgements of right or wrong on a case by case basis. For example, i don't agree with theft but i could understand if someone did steal in a life or death situation, say if it was for medical treatment for their child (yes, i have been watching Spiderman 3 if anyone noticed the similarity). Therefore i guess i have no actual absolutes as such. Not killing, stealing, sleeping with someone else's partner, or spreading lies about people are a good base to start on. THat sounds familiar.

I like your starting bases there - evolutionary psychology would agree with you there - those that engage in those things you have mentioned are unlikely to last long - enlightened self-interest will see the survival of the fittest. Sleeping with your best friends husband is unlikely to assist you in getting help from said friend in times of crisis or disaster. Those that act in enlightened ways are likely to last a bit longer

I obviously am working in some parallel universe because I cant sem to express what I want to ask. I'm sorry, I'm tired and premenstrual adn not up to my usual self.

I might have been offensive, and I am truly sorry. I've certainly not phrased things well, because a few of you seem to think I might not be functioning properly when I clearly am, and some of the arguments you are making read as gobbledegook to me.

Probably better to keep away from this clash of worldviews from now on. We are talking different languages.

The idea that religious people have a stronger moral code makes me gag a little as well. Religious peoples morals are onlya s strong as their own morals would be without the religion. I know plenty of good religious people; equally I know a few scummy ones who seem to operate on some rather bizarre and unfriendly principles! People either choose to live by a moral code (well an acceptable one- everyone ahs something in there they follow) or not. Doesn't matter what name they give the source of that code- either its there or not.

Nobody said you weren't functioning properly that I read?

Harisey this is an interesting argument / debate but I get the impression that you are not quite reading as we are typing- tiredness would account for that. I'm not saying you are wrong- just that you seem to be talking at cross purposes. I've ahd the pleasure of discussingt ings with you on other threads and known you can be more - lucid, I suppose.

I am sorry if what I am typing sounds like gobbledigook. I ahve to say that saying that to someone goes AGINST my moral code of not hurting peoples feelings.

I admit to feeling cross and hacked off when there is the suggestion that people who are not religious are amoral or immoral because of it.
I thought your idea that a life spent 'enjoying yourself' does include love or kindness was utterly bizarre.
And I still don't know what you mean by moral codes colliding.

I think I am wonderfully moral and good and kind and loving compared to say, Mohammed or the Old Testament God. I've never killed anyone, for example, and have no plans to do so.

Not even Tony Blair Aloha?

A really interesting question is, Do you believe in victimless crime?

In other words, if no-one is harmed by a particular action or idea, can it still be wrong?

People with or without religion will often answer differently.

For me, the answer is "no", because for something to be wrong, it must be somehow hurtful or harmful.

But many religions specifically endorse victimless crime, for example in believing homosexuality to be wrong even if it makes the people concerned very happy.

Nope, of course not. But I wouldn't cry if he died, and I think he is a vile excuse for a human being. And being religious didn't stop him being directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, did it? Or lying and sending us into an illegal war. I'd bet my morals against his any day of the week. Or George God-told-me-to-bomb-Iraq Bush, come to that.

See, I wish I could have gotten to the beting shop in time to put abet on Alohas answer then. i'd be rolling in it.

Victimless crime- they're pretty rare really I think, most things affect someone somewhere at some point. And because nobody is harmed doesn't mean somebody couldn't be harmed- eg drink driving. I also think you can ahrm yourself by getting involved in immoral stuff.

But when they ahppen 9rarely imo_ a lack of victim doesn't make something right, but it makes it not worth worrying about.

sorry to be so predictable. But I think it demonstrates very clearly that banging on about God all the time does not make you a good person. Quite the contrary in some cases.

Oh yes I agree with that (and I was joshing Aloha).

Our old vicar bannedds1 fromm Church. Why? because his HFA gave him a tick that annoyed her.

Religions does not equal good.

Good eprson equals good person, regardless of the albels we apply.

Oh no, peachy, something like drink driving could never come under the victimless crime heading because it's hugely stupid risk taking behaviour.

It's more of a philosophical question - can something be wrong if it causes no harm? In many religions the answer is "yes", for example in believing homosexuality to be intrinsically wrong, but few non-religious people would agree, I think.

I agree that people are probably the same with or without religion - ie if you are generally law-abiding, peaceable and kind you will be so whatever religion have or don't have. Equally, you can find the justification for all sorts of dreadful behaviour in religion if you want to.

If you mean is it morally wrong to eat pork, or not trim your pubic hair (!) or not wear your trousers slightly to short, or not wear a specific sort of bangle, then I don't think many non-religious people will agree with that!
the sort of petty rules about nonsense that are so important in many religions just don't have a moral dimension for most non-religious people.

Yes, that's it exactly Aloha - moral rules about things which objectively have no moral dimension.

I think some religious people expect all atheists to have the same view on morals, which is of course, completely wrong. Atheism is not a moral position per se, and you can be an atheist with strong moral beliefs, or one without.

"and some of the arguments you are making read as gobbledegook to me."

Care to elaborate Harrisey? I think people have made very clear arguments. Dismissing these arguments as gobblegook sounds like a conenient way to avoid having to address them.

Add me to the list of people who get offended by the idea that people without religion don't have morals.