<atheist only>

**Sandform** · 01-22-2008 05:42 PM

To Xaq's request I've put atheist only. Just to be nice really, it isn't atheist only, but it is only pertaining to what atheists think. Feel free to add in if you are a theist. I just don't want theists popping in to say something like "this is why you need the bible!" and then shove it down our throat.

I've just been wondering if there are any types of followings any other atheists have...or if they just run on the most rational (and hopefully compassionate) thing to do.

But this leaves loop holes like...

Its OK to sit around and do nothing. While at first it seems like if you do this it only effects you. (you gain nothing and lose portions of your life and probably lose health) But it also effects society, if everyone does this then society ceases to progress.

So anyway, are there any atheists that have set of [loose]rules that they follow?

I really just follow the law and do my best to do whatever benefits me and the people I love while making myself happy as well.

**Barns** · 01-22-2008 10:22 PM

Well, the reason for religion is that people want rules to follow.

I would have thought if you were an atheist then you would not seek such rules.

Of course, that is speaking very generally, as there are many other reasons behind religious choices.

**Sandform** · 01-22-2008 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by Barns

Well, the reason for religion is that people want rules to follow.

I think that is hardly the reason for religion. That is probably the ideal reason for religion.

Anyway, I was just wondering if any atheists out there had something that they follow. I know that in places like Asia and I think japan a lot of the atheists there follow dao and Confucianism. Although when I say dao, I mean the non religious sections.

**O'nus** · 01-22-2008 10:36 PM

I consider myself atheist (although I would prefer another title..) and I feel I have a very strong set of ethics and principles that I live by.

Consider the link in my signature "What is the onus...?" to see what I follow. Essentially, I call it "Chaotic Eudaimonia" and I am really considering making it into a book.

Let me know what you think, please.

~

**Carôusoul** · 01-22-2008 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by O'nus

I consider myself atheist (although I would prefer another title..) and I feel I have a very strong set of ethics and principles that I live by.

Consider the link in my signature "What is the onus...?" to see what I follow. Essentially, I call it "Chaotic Eudaimonia" and I am really considering making it into a book.

Let me know what you think, please.

~

I dislike eudaimonia. Part of Aristotle's Eudaimonia involves having the best slaves you can. Seems outdatedddd.

Although I have no idea what you mean by sanction eudaimonia or chatoic eudaimonia.

**O'nus** · 01-22-2008 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I dislike eudaimonia. Part of Aristotle's Eudaimonia involves having the best slaves you can. Seems outdatedddd.

Although I have no idea what you mean by sanction eudaimonia or chatoic eudaimonia.

Please consider that I have re-vised the definition and integrated it as it seemed best suited to my views with certain modifications (ie. slaves..).

I would invent a new word, but eudaimonia is very close to what I would use. So I use it anyway since most people do not even know its origin otherwise.

Chaos is the function that allows eudaimonia to propogate.

Sanction eudaimonia is my suggestion to hold eudaimonia to be a principle in lifes decisions as it ought to bring about the best result (via chaos).

Edit: I see my view very synonymous to humanistic existentialism.

~

**Carôusoul** · 01-22-2008 10:37 PM

It's Tao, no?

Anyhow; I have a moral code based on Utilitarianism and classic Virtue Ethics and Extistentialism and Humanism.

**Moonbeam** · 01-23-2008 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by Barns

Well, the reason for religion is that people want rules to follow.

It's the other way around. People evolved as social animals and therefore have innate rules of behavior, which were included in all religions and reflected in laws.

Religion doesn't work well to enforce civil behavior; the most religious states have the most crime, for example. In places where there is insufficient law enforcement, religion does not work to control people's behavior.

The first thing I thought of was a liberatarian type philosphy; you are free to do with yourself as you please, as long as you don't harm others in the process. (The right to swing your fist ends where the other person's nose begins). This does not include the mental anguish apparently suffered by people who have unsupported beliefs when they are disagreed with.