and more

• Each person should have the freedom to believe whatever they want or do believe, even if it is wrong. Traditional beliefs may be wrong.  They should not have the right to impose wrong information on the young, next generation. They have no right to impose that information onto anyone else, or even to aggressively prosthesis. Anything belief without evidence should be treated as suspect, and not given much weight in reality.
•  

Atheist Code of Ethics

Atheist Code of Ethics... a work in progress

Is there a universal code of ethics?  Well, not yet. Someone might try to hold us to them. And there are issues.

All ethic codes are subjective, there are no objective codes. There can also be legal codes, best practices, and collective codes. Anything that is agreed upon can become a ethical code. 

Right and wrong, for many things could be looked at as a nine point scale, where right and wrong are the extreme poles of such a scale. Can ethics be looked at in the same manner?

Well, before we get there, we need to consider subjective ethics and objective ethics. But wait. There are no objective ethics, only subjective; there may be a few near objective premises, so perhaps subjective - objective should be the poles of a nine point scale. But if we could all agree on some points, we could have a universal code aggregated together, those points we all agree on being declared to be universal, just as a legal system defines what is not acceptable in a society.  The most we can do is to lay out a few precepts.

• Always tell the truth. Truth is the absolute foundation of any code of ethics. Correct understanding of the words must also be included. Truth does not include the unknown, only those things that we know to be true, not those things we believe are true. If we consider false (1) to be low end of a nine point scale, and true to the 9, neutral to be 5, then only an 9 is true. Or should that be 8 and nine. Lets say 8 and 9 for now.  
• Equality of life, not in starting position, nor gifts. Equality of rights is the concept, yet even this has problems. It is not the same as the human rights for that goes too far. It allows freedom of religions, and religions are often the problem. Most religions have components that violate truth and equality clauses.
• Right to life. Life should not be threatened by any state, yet how else does one prevent invasion or annihilation by the competition?
• Right to own property, and the right to defend that property. Why work if a thief is allowed to take that property? Canada has taken away this right to some extent, and that is going to be more of a problem in the future as our already over-populated world gains more people.
• Right to produce the next generation up to the limit of our Quota. The world is overpopulated, as evidenced by the rise in Co2 levels. A limit in reproduction is required, perhaps a one child limit. 
• Right to die, to do what is necessary to look after one's own life, first. Equality does not attach until birth and survival.  
•  
•  

This is a first draft of the concept only.

Will this stimulate discussion?   

Life or Boredom

https://www.atheistrev.com/2018/07/breaking-up-monotony-of-atheist-blogging.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AtheistRevolution+%28Atheist+Revolution%29

Sometime we just need to make changes and move on. Being an atheist can be as simple as there is no god, no afterlife, no miracles, no supernatural. All religion is just quackery, more or less.

It is not the event, but what we think about the event; our mind tells us what is real to us, if we let it. Or we can chose what we know to be real. Life is all that is of absolute value, all else is just relative value. We can adopt an ethic, and live that ethic without fear of anything beyond the law and the potential of a crazy doing something crazy that effects us. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

We can study ethics until we realize that there are few absolutes, beyond survival and equality is required for survival, life and satisfaction, a bit of simple pleasure, a means of livelihood, or the Buddhist Eight, Stoic thinking, the virtues or virtue ethics, or life by the Analects. Beyond the traditions and rituals, what would be the differences? Not much. Some value truth above tradition, others value tradition over truth and reality. I have become truth seeking... and that has placed me at odds with the religious... because of the truth that there is no admissible evidence of a god, but if you believe there is great comfort, consolation and pleasure to be had for no cost, other that accepting tradition over truth. That is as simple as it gets. Do you place a higher value of truth or tradition?

Consolation over the loss of family should not be underestimated in value. This has been observed to drive many people to their religion, and yet from the outside we can see that it is wrong. I would not deny anyone their consolation, however they seek it, yet from the outside I know that it is wrong. So how does one handle the grieving?

There is the next topic, death, consolation, and no god. Seneca may be the place to start that study. And yet it remains, it is not the event, but our thinking about the event. Reality vs what we think reality is. To the individual, it is our mind that controls our reaction. We become smaller or fade until we disappear mentally. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

Carbon content of the atmosphere tells the story of the health of our economy, and of the health of the planet. We are burning ourselves to death. We are too many, for out life style. People do not give up a high carbon dioxide production lifestyle easily, it will need to be pried from our cold dead hands. That is what the earth will do, over our dead bodies. The end is coming, yet it will not be a complete extinction, but rather a life becoming more difficult until the correct for the earth population size is realized, at some time in the future...  Oh well....

Understanding Society

We are a random collection of individuals who have many characteristics and beliefs, many of our beliefs are likely wrong. We are occupied by our primary concerns, working, making money, providing for ourselves, and family, and a bit of entertainment, pleasure, and the like. We do not have a whole lot of concern for others, well most do not, but there are busy bodies, do gooders. Oh well. There are also a criminal element who want to take the property of others, and those who sell drugs, those who buy drugs, and those who use drugs.

Drugs. Morals come from society, logic, thoughts, as well as being handed down, and of course, the mystics. Life is the only thing of real value we have, so any existential thinker should think that anything that devalues or risks life should not be done lightly. But for some, life it's self is not that great. If life is not great, than risking life for a bit of chemical induce pleasure sensation is, well, not a big decision. But if you do not care about your life, why should I?

Pleasure vs pleasure sensation is a distinction that helps recovery from overeating. Once we separate the sensation from pleasure, well, shit happens or not for for some. That is an ambiguous statement, and as intended. Who knows what the effect is or is not to the individual. It can help if that was an issue, but have no effect it that was not a issue. Who knows?

So we have all these individuals, each acting partly freely, partly out of need, part out of desires, so it appears in bulk as random, yet each move is directed, in a loose way by the internal issues of each individual. No god, just beliefs, needs, desires, and some random interaction is inevitably. Oh well. There may be strong belief in gods by some, that is their problem, and if they do not care about the truth, why should I care? All I must do in the end is expire, but until then, I should not do anything to foolishly risk my life. Drugs, chemicals, stupid behaviors and the like should be avoided. That is morality with reason, no mystics involved.   

Real or Imaginary

Real or Imaginary

The separation of beliefs and facts is not something I ever really thought about. In this age of trump, the individual, it has become necessary to really have a good look at this. Truth, that elusive concept, has become critical to identify and explore a bit more. Are our beliefs just imaginary? Like money, perhaps.

Beliefs and opinions on one side, and facts, knowledge, perhaps history on the other; two separate heaps of concepts, those mental objects. 

So what we do to occupy our time is not to important in the overall scheme of things. Less than 50% of the population are actively involved in the production of real things, the remainder of us, well we play around in a non real world, which some has value, and some has less value. Some has no value to anyone beside ourselves. It is just time burned. We may gain understanding of things, or we may gain wrong understanding of things. We just do not know. It does not matter, when we are dead, all our thoughts are also gone. The only way to avoid the thoughts not be totally gone is to publish, and then perhaps they will survive, if they are worth surviving. 

So the impermanence of it all comes home to roost. Yet each thought that I consider worth saving was not original, but can be traced back to something I read, did, a situation, a decision, an understanding of something. It is not about what is, but, what I think about what is. Some things just do not fit, as the immigrant who wants to hold onto traditions or behaviors of their homeland. Hell, hold onto thoughts, concepts, behaviors of "before computer times". Impermanence must be at the forefront in the mind, at least up there. It does not matter, as the value of the thought cannot be lost, as Buddha said, someone will thing of it again if it is lost and was of value. 

Decisions, Decisions

We can look at the atheist process as a series of dipole switches:
Is there a god?  Do I believe there is a god or not?

These two dipoles create four distinct considerations. The atheist, there is no god, and I believe there is no god; the confused, there is no god and I believe there is a god; what the religious think of atheist, there is a god, and I think there is no god; and the religious, there is a god and we believe.

As there is no evidence of a god, the only logical to assume there is no god, and once we see this, it is obvious that all the benefits of religions flow from the simple belief that there is a god. A simple belief, no reality. In fact, all religions are founded on this simple and wrong likely belief. Duh.

So what is there to base our ethics on? Our existence? The beliefs that give the remainder of humans the best chance of pleasant, fair and equatable or equitable lives? What is something worth? Fair pricing must be named.

Does the government have the right to impose ethical constraints on the people? Do any group of others have the right to impose there values onto others, when the behavior does not impact the group, and it is just against the opinions of the group? I am of the opinion that group must mind there own business, and as such stay out of places where there nose does not belong. We Canadians have abortion right, it must be between the female and her doctor. Other people are not involved.

The fetus has no rights until it is born. Consider our noble savages's culture of old. If the child did not survive birth on it's own, it did not survive. Life required independence from the first breath. Children and old who could not keep up were simple left behind when camp moved. To bad. So sad. Do what we need to to survive. Now we are harnessed with the burden of many lives who cannot support themselves.  

What do I know?