Atheist morality?

[Shredderbeam]

I disagree.

Just break down the word “atheist” into its roots, and you’ll see what it means.

Also: Try talking to a few actual atheists before making claims about what they believe. It helps more than you might imagine.

 

[TheAtheist]

Right on - atheism will grab the traditional Catholic morality but drop the God and absolute truth part. No atheist is born in a vacuum.

Truth be told Buffalo, if i had to “rank popularity” of these types of things i’d argue that most atheists (and here i’m talking about the folks who don’t spend their lives even considering the questions we raise) in America at least adopt some sort of post-Enlightenment value system derivative of American Protestantism.

For those who feel they have to go “fight for the cause” or are of a more scientific bent - “New Atheism” as defined by Dawkins and Harris has definitely become quite popular (and the Loudest in my opinion).

For those who partake of an individualist flavor - there’s always the Nietzchean option.

Or there are those who convert to Buddhism (also popular with the youngins) although i’m not quite sure how to gauge that one.

Some might “convert convert” and accept the metaphysical and cosmological propositions of Buddhism, while others might “strip-mine” Buddhism and jettison all its supernatural elements while leaving its ethical/moral value system.

I believe their claim in doing this is that they are “Saving Buddhism from the Asians” , or rather the culture accumulation of beliefs in spirits and such. In a strange way to makes some sort of “Protestant Buddhism” that is in fact atheistic (even if Buddhism was not original).

 

[TheAtheist]

Also: Try talking to a few actual atheists before making claims about what they believe. It helps more than you might imagine.

Field Research is important for all of us.

Otherwise we end up as an abstraction - and its very very easy for people to color an abstraction.

And easier to hate it.

 

[crowonsnow]

Oh bother, the question was just asked and people are already comparing “death toll” numbers.

Folks, with all do respect (be you atheist or Christian or whatever) - can we get any more cliche than this?

You’re right of course. The implication in a discussion like this is simply that being Christian is better than being atheist. I feel it is important to point out that the evidence does not support this. If a comparison needs be made, the evidence clearly shows that Christianity and theism are more deadly.

 

[buffalo]

You’re right of course. The implication in a discussion like this is simply that being Christian is better than being atheist. I feel it is important to point out that the evidence does not support this. If a comparison needs be made, the evidence clearly shows that Christianity and theism are more deadly.

The Irrational Atheist debunks this.

 

[CSUNGerrie]

Genocidal behavior is not limited to atheists.
Even the ancient Jews claimed God told them to commit genocide against the Canaanites.

Genocidal individuals who come to positions of power will use whatever justification they find convenient to use - regardless of whether they are atheists or religious.

…Depending on which type of individuals are in power, this can result in the whole gamut of possible outcomes.

We must ask why did God command them to kill certain peoples? What was it those particular people that that made God command the Jews to do that. Is it really fair to compare that to the slaughter of Jews just because they are Jews? I think these are different cases.

I agree with your point that power corrupts. However, we cannot simply tie a bow around all cases of mass murder and pre-condem it. In many cases, the religious have acted **contrary **to what their religion teaches and gone out to murder thousands of people. However, in the cases when atheist mass murdered, there was nothing to contradict their behavior. Their actions were the logical outworking of an atheistic worldview. After all, if there is no right and wrong, why shouldn’t an individual murder millions of people? Pragmatics perhaps? Utilitarian values? Well it seems quite pragmatic and in line with a utilitarian view to weed out the unfit (as defined by the ruling class) for the sake of creating a race of supermen.

 

[CSUNGerrie]

On the flip side, a Nazi who was Christian killed because he was a Nazi, his Christianity was not an integral element of his Nazism (Though it is fair to argue that Christianity played a large role in the anti-semitism that formed the backdrop and was a necessary precondition of the Holocaust).

So then before Christianity there was no anti-semiticism? There this book in which the author paints a made up story in which Hitler gets caught and is interregated by the Jews. When asked, why did you kill our people Hitler says something like, “because I needed to kill them in order to make way for my race of supermen” Kinda like Nietcha’s parable of the superman who kills the religious man.

The reality almost seems metaphorical in that the atheist tyrant tries to kill the people who brought objective moral values into the world.

 

[jean8]

Wondering if anyone has suggestions on how to address the contention that all commonly recognized moral behaviours (taboos against murder, incest, adultery, etc) are all derived from “group selection” evolution. I had adopted the position in a recent debate that the concept of an atheist morality was essentially oxymoronic as it could have no justification beyond personal preference or gut instinct and sort of got blindsided by the other fellow claiming that it was all evolutionary group instinct.

I have this scripture for those who choose to go their own way.

Ps 14:1 “A fool has said in his heart, 'here is no God.”

jean

 

[wasmit]

You’re right of course. The implication in a discussion like this is simply that being Christian is better than being atheist. I feel it is important to point out that the evidence does not support this. If a comparison needs be made, the evidence clearly shows that Christianity and theism are more deadly.

how?

 

[anon5216]

We must ask why did God command them to kill certain peoples? What was it those particular people that that made God command the Jews to do that. Is it really fair to compare that to the slaughter of Jews just because they are Jews? I think these are different cases.

What we must ask is: Just because the Jews claimed God commanded them to slaughter every last Canaanite man, woman and child, does that mean the claim is true?
If the answer is no, and I personally believe that to be the case, then the examples referred to are very much similar cases.

I agree with your point that power corrupts. However, we cannot simply tie a bow around all cases of mass murder and pre-condem it. In many cases, the religious have acted **contrary **to what their religion teaches and gone out to murder thousands of people. However, in the cases when atheist mass murdered, there was nothing to contradict their behavior. Their actions were the logical outworking of an atheistic worldview. After all, if there is no right and wrong, why shouldn’t an individual murder millions of people? Pragmatics perhaps? Utilitarian values? Well it seems quite pragmatic and in line with a utilitarian view to weed out the unfit (as defined by the ruling class) for the sake of creating a race of supermen.

Being an atheist is not synonymous with believing there is no such thing as right and wrong.

You can’t seriously be claiming that if it were definitively proven to you personally that God was a myth created by man and did not really exist, that you personally would become a mass murderer.

I ask the same question to everyone else on this thread who is arguing for belief in God being the only thing keeping humans from becoming mass murderers until there is no one left to murder.
Would you personally become a mass murderer if it was proven to you that God didn’t exist?

For those of you who answer ‘yes’, (and I really don’t expect any ‘yes’ responses from this forum),
please, please, please, never lose your religious faith no matter what;
and ideally, join a strict, cloistered religious institution.

 

[mchale]

So then before Christianity there was no anti-semiticism? There this book in which the author paints a made up story in which Hitler gets caught and is interregated by the Jews. When asked, why did you kill our people Hitler says something like, “because I needed to kill them in order to make way for my race of supermen” Kinda like Nietcha’s parable of the superman who kills the religious man.

The reality almost seems metaphorical in that the atheist tyrant tries to kill the people who brought objective moral values into the world.

I am not saying there wasn’t antisemitism before Christianity. What I am saying is that the antisemitism that the Nazi’s built upon to create the Holocaust was, in large part, rooted in the antisemitism that came from certain “Christian” attitudes regarding blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

You’re right of course. The implication in a discussion like this is simply that being Christian is better than being atheist. I feel it is important to point out that the evidence does not support this. If a comparison needs be made, the evidence clearly shows that Christianity and theism are more deadly.

So you have claimed. However, in the first century where ideological movements existed into which atheism was an integral part (i.e. communism), the Death toll perpetrated by such movements was staggering.

I really think you are going to need to back your claim up with some real documentation and no Richard Dawkin’s books don’t count.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

Being an atheist is not synonymous with believing there is no such thing as right and wrong.

I agree it is not… however, if you are an atheist who believes in right and wrong, then you have to answer the following:

1. Are right and wrong objective standards or are they relative to the culture that holds the values?
2. If right and wrong are objective standards, then define them?
3. If right and wrong are relative standards, then what, if any obligation are individuals under to follow the standards of others?

Ultimately, I personally believe (mostly because I have seen no evidence to the contrary) that atheism inevitably leads to the belief that the notions of right and wrong become relative standards. As such one can easily develop the notion that the ends justify the means. Thus some, though not all, atheists can develop the notion that it is ok to kill thousands or millions of people in an effort to achieve a particular end.

Now, I am not saying that Christians can’t develop this same attitude as well, however, such a standard is clearly at odds with Christian Teachings on morality (i.e., the ends don’t justify the means).

You can’t seriously be claiming that if it were definitively proven to you personally that God was a myth created by man and did not really exist, that you personally would become a mass murderer.

I ask the same question to everyone else on this thread who is arguing for belief in God being the only thing keeping humans from becoming mass murderers until there is no one left to murder.
Would you personally become a mass murderer if it was proven to you that God didn’t exist?

For those of you who answer ‘yes’, (and I really don’t expect any ‘yes’ responses from this forum),
please, please, please, never lose your religious faith no matter what;
and ideally, join a strict, cloistered religious institution.

The question here is not whether we would become mass murders or not, but why, objectively, we should not? Christians understand that there is always a higher power we will ultimately answer to; therefore, we have to live to that power’s standard. If you are an atheist, that higher power and standard does not, necessarily, exist.

–
Bill

 

[cerad]

So you have claimed. However, in the first century where ideological movements existed into which atheism was an integral part (i.e. communism), the Death toll perpetrated by such movements was staggering.

I really think you are going to need to back your claim up with some real documentation and no Richard Dawkin’s books don’t count.

–
Bill

Did you mean 20th century instead of the first century? If not then please post some examples of communism from 2000 years ago.

 

[buffalo]

how?

Read it if you dare.

 

[cerad]

I agree it is not… however, if you are an atheist who believes in right and wrong, then you have to answer the following:

1. Are right and wrong objective standards or are they relative to the culture that holds the values?

Relative to the culture.

1. If right and wrong are objective standards, then define them?

They are not.

1. If right and wrong are relative standards, then what, if any obligation are individuals under to follow the standards of others?

No obligation at all. However, if the others are in a position of power then they may chose to take steps to enforce the obligations.

Ultimately, I personally believe (mostly because I have seen no evidence to the contrary) that atheism inevitably leads to the belief that the notions of right and wrong become relative standards. As such one can easily develop the notion that the ends justify the means. Thus some, though not all, atheists can develop the notion that it is ok to kill thousands or millions of people in an effort to achieve a particular end.

Yep. That is why we need to be on guard against such people.

Now, I am not saying that Christians can’t develop this same attitude as well, however, such a standard is clearly at odds with Christian Teachings on morality (i.e., the ends don’t justify the means).

Unless the people with the power feel that God is telling them to kill. It doesn’t really matter if God has actually told them or not, it’s just a question of whether they believe it.

Or consider this. For almost 50 years now submarines have patrolled the oceans carrying enough nuclear weapons to kill millions of people on demand. By and large these boats are crewed by Christians and there is no doubt that if orders were received the missiles would fly. Likewise the people who would send the orders are by and large Christians.

So clearly Christian morality does not reject the notion that sometimes you have no choice but to kill mass numbers of people. And to prepare accordingly.

The question here is not whether we would become mass murders or not, but why, objectively, we should not? Christians understand that there is always a higher power we will ultimately answer to; therefore, we have to live to that power’s standard. If you are an atheist, that higher power and standard does not, necessarily, exist.

–
Bill

It’s a combination of evolution, upbringing and law enforcement that prevents most people from committing mass murders.

 

[mchale]

Did you mean 20th century instead of the first century? If not then please post some examples of communism from 2000 years ago.

I am sorry, I meant in its first century, not the first century.

–
Bill

 

[CSUNGerrie]

What we must ask is: Just because the Jews claimed God commanded them to slaughter every last Canaanite man, woman and child, does that mean the claim is true?
If the answer is no, and I personally believe that to be the case, then the examples referred to are very much similar cases.

Being an atheist is not synonymous with believing there is no such thing as right and wrong.

You can’t seriously be claiming that if it were definitively proven to you personally that God was a myth created by man and did not really exist, that you personally would become a mass murderer.

I ask the same question to everyone else on this thread who is arguing for belief in God being the only thing keeping humans from becoming mass murderers until there is no one left to murder.
Would you personally become a mass murderer if it was proven to you that God didn’t exist?

So if America was never attacked but heard about the evil that the Nazi regime was doing and decided to attack and destroy that regime… this would be the same as the Nazi’s destroying the jews living in Germany?

I am not saying that being an atheist and believing that there is no such thing as right and wrong leads on to necessarily become a mass murderer. Perhaps I gave that impression by my choice of words. I meant that for an atheist to go out and kill thousands of people and justify it under an atheistic world view is logically consistent. It is permissible by an atheistic world view. But for a Christian to go out and kill thousands of people is not consistent with a Christian world view. He would be acting contrary to what he believes. Whereas the atheist would not be acting contrary nor in support of what he believes. But his belief would not tell him he shouldnt.

So one of them has a barrier and the other one doesnt. This might help us understand why opening the flood gates to secularism in the 20th century led to the bloodiest century.

 

[mchale]

Relative to the culture.

They are not.

So if right and wrong are in fact culturally defined concepts, then in fact one could argue that we have no inherent right to judge the actions of those from another culture; to do so is to impose one arbitrary set of values onto another culture.

No obligation at all. However, if the others are in a position of power then they may chose to take steps to enforce the obligations.

Or in fact they can come up with completely new obligations and enforce them. And for that matter, those in power are under no obligation to obey any particular moral code. I.e., The strong are free define what is right… or as another poster pointed out, Might makes Right.

Yep. That is why we need to be on guard against such people.

You can only guard against such people before they get into power. The problem is that people like that are not always clearly recognized until it is too late to do anything about them.

Unless the people with the power feel that God is telling them to kill. It doesn’t really matter if God has actually told them or not, it’s just a question of whether they believe it.

Or consider this. For almost 50 years now submarines have patrolled the oceans carrying enough nuclear weapons to kill millions of people on demand. By and large these boats are crewed by Christians and there is no doubt that if orders were received the missiles would fly. Likewise the people who would send the orders are by and large Christians.

Just a couple thoughts here. Even conventional weapons have the power to kill millions of people (as was amply demonstrated in the World Wars). In addition, only one side was predominantly Christian. The Soviet Block was officially atheistic and it appears most Soviet citizens, particularly younger ones, were in fact often atheists. The final point of course is that many, perhaps the majority of such sailors believed that the existence of the weapons helped make sure that such weapons would never be used by either side.

–
Bill

 

[buffalo]

Again I ask - why didn’t the first atheist murder the second?