Morality without God?

[Leela]

Hi All,

In the now closed science versus faith thread, we began talking about morality. A common belief among religious people is that atheism provides no basis for morality. That’s true, because atheism is not a philosophy, it is merely the lack of belief in God–the state that every human being is born into? It doesn’t claim to be the basis for anything. But that does not mean that without a belief in God there is no basis for morality.

I think that people who don’t believe in God actually have the same basis for morality as those who do. Even those who believe in God suppose that God had good REASONS for making some things good and others bad? Christians point to the Bible as their moral basis, but if a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover it by reading the Bible which is bursting with celebrations of cruelty. We read these celebrations of cruelty and judge them to be immoral, and we read the Golden rule and judge it to be good. We decide what is good in our good books (or in the unique case of Catholics, you decide to abide by what the Church teaches about the Bible) by recourse to moral intuitions that are developed and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes of human suffering and the possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable progress in ethics over the years (just as we have in every other field of human inquiry), and we didn’t make any of this progress by reading the Bible more closely. For example, the Bible condones the practice of slavery, yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. We didn’t learn that slavery is immoral from the Bible.

I think I’ve said ebough here to get discussion started? I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Best,
Leela

 

[Genesis315]

In regards to morality, it might be better to say that empiricists, rather than atheists, cannot make moral claims consistent with their philosophy. You can’t claim something is cruel, for example, apart from a metaphysical point of view. If we’re all just firing synapses and twitching muscles apart from an objective standard or ideal from which to judge, one cannot make any statements concerning behavior that contain the words “should” or “ought.” The fact that empiricists do make moral claims and quite often make the right claims is actually greater evidence for the existence of God than it is for His non-existence or non-necessity.

As an aside, the Catholic Church always condemned chattel slavery (but not all involuntary servitude, such as the kinds the US Constitution still allowes for example). Even modern secular ethics have a metaphysical starting point, a vestige of former days.

 

[Genesis315]

Just to add, it’s kind of like how Protestants can know the Bible is the inspired word of God, but the only reason this knowledge is possible is because the Catholic Church has testified to it (even thought many deny that fact).

Similarly, atheists can know right from wrong and make correct moral choices, but that knowledge exists precisely because God has made it part of our very nature, which while wounded and therefore subject to err, is still essentially good.

With the reason inherent in our souls alone we can determine right morals, but we can also err in that regard.Just as one may misread the Bible and therefore needs to look to the Catholic Church to make sure the reading is not erroneous, so may one err in making moral judgments, and therefore must look back to the source, God, to keep those moral judgements good.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

A common belief among religious people is that atheism provides no basis for morality.

That’s true, because atheism is not a philosophy, it is merely the lack of belief in God–the state that every human being is born into?

Atheism is not a “lack” of anything. It is a religion, because it is a (very individualistic) set of beliefs, and a “set of beliefs” is a religion.

Also, atheism is not the state every human person is born into.

To not have a “set of beliefs” (a religion) is to be utterly unsure of the next moment, which would show physical effects, which infants most certainly are not and do not show.

Persons are persons BEFORE they are born. While in the womb persons have the expectation that they are “in safeness itself”. This “belief system” exists from conception until the first perceived threat to their “safeness”.

The initial condition of the person is absolute trust in God (most especially in His “all-loving” so-called “aspect”).

What is “learned behavior” is to NOT believe in God, due to the trials of the world.

(( Howdy Leela! ))

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I think that people who don’t believe in God actually have the same basis for morality as those who do.

If it’s CORRECT morality then you are correct.

If it is INCORRECT so-called morality then you are incorrect.

God is the source of correct morality, whether one chooses to believe in God (qua God) or not. But it is quite easy to label “want” as “morality” if obeying natural law is overridden by not realizing the actual source of true/correct morality.

Even those who believe in God suppose that God had good REASONS for making some things good and others bad?

That is correct. But those without a basis of morality in God who see supposed (to them) “unnecessary suffering” in the world are prone to the sin of pessimism (which is a non-trust in God, which is a violation of seeing God as God [commandment #1, I think. ]).

A belief in the nonexistence of God (qua God) doesn’t preclude being morally upright (“good” and therefore “saved”, or “savable” at any rate) due to the availability of natural law to which to listen and obey, but to be motivated to override “(attractive) immoral wants” (false morality) due to natural law is EXTREMELY difficult to do.

Christians point to the Bible as their moral basis, but if a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover it by reading the Bible which is bursting with celebrations of cruelty.

Quite true. That’s why we (Catholics) don’t rely solely on the bible, as it’s not the bible’s “duty” to interpret itself (simply by it’s reading).

The basis of Catholic morality is God, Who informs us of what we need to know via His Church through the function of her Magisterium (which means her “teaching authority”).

:shamrock2:

 

[Leela]

Hi Cats,

Atheism is not a “lack” of anything. It is a religion, because it is a (very individualistic) set of beliefs, and a “set of beliefs” is a religion.

If atheism is a religion then perhaps you’d like to join me in my new hobby, “not learning how to sew”? I’ve heard “not collecting stamps” is also interesting? You aren’t perhaps bald? Bald is my favorite hair color.

Though you like to generalize about what it is that atheists believe, the most you can really say about their beliefs in general is that they do not have a belief in God or gods.

Atheists certainly have beliefs, but there is no particular set of beliefs that they share that you can point to and say, that’s the atheist philosophy. It’s even more absurd to call whatever they do believe a religion since whatever it is a particular atheist believes her beliefs by definition do not include a belief in God or gods.

Atheism is a label I wish we didn’t even need any more than we need a word for someone who does not believe in astrology or someone who is not racist. I feel stuck with it as a label that some people would apply to me.

Also, atheism is not the state every human person is born into.

To not have a “set of beliefs” (a religion) is to be utterly unsure of the next moment, which would show physical effects, which infants most certainly are not and do not show.

I don’t think it makes sense to talk of babies as having any beliefs whatsoever let alone a belief in God. In fact, when my brother’s wife had a baby recently I asked the baby right away if she believed in God, and she didn’t say anything. I took that for a “no.”

Best,
Leela

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Atheism is not a “lack” of anything. It is a religion, because it is a (very individualistic) set of beliefs, and a “set of beliefs” is a religion.

If atheism is a religion then perhaps you’d like to join me in my new hobby, “not learning how to sew”? I’ve heard “not collecting stamps” is also interesting? You aren’t perhaps bald? Bald is my favorite hair color.

Atheism isn’t a religion because it’s “not learning how to sew”. It is a religion because it has positive (posited) beliefs as to how reality works.

“Not learning how to sew” is not a hobby. A hobby is doing something that is “hobby-like”.

Atheism is a religion because it it “religion-like”. Catholicism is likewise a religion because it is “religion-like”.

Though you like to generalize about what it is that atheists believe, the most you can really say about their beliefs in general is that they do not have a belief in God or gods.

That is not true.

Why don’t they believe those things? Those are the beliefs which are their religion.

Atheists certainly have beliefs, but there is no particular set of beliefs that they share that you can point to and say, that’s the atheist philosophy.

I’m not talking about “atheistic philosophy”. I’m taking about that which an atheist uses to define himself as an atheist.

That “set of beliefs” is that particular atheist’s religion.

It’s even more absurd to call whatever they do believe a religion since whatever it is a particular atheist believes her beliefs by definition do not include a belief in God or gods.

God, as either God qua God or gods qua gods, is not a requirement for a set of beliefs, which is a religion.

Atheism is a label I wish we didn’t even need any more than we need a word for someone who does not believe in astrology or someone who is not racist. I feel stuck with it as a label that some people would apply to me.

I really wish that atheism was called what it is as well.

It is scientistic materialism. The reverence of the power of human reason over the material universe to do perfectly as it wills.

The great deception imposed on the atheist, by the demonic, is that it’s not a belief system but a “freeing from” all belief systems that “don’t matter”.

Who decides which belief systems “don’t matter”, and why do they decide as they will?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Also, atheism is not the state every human person is born into.

To not have a “set of beliefs” (a religion) is to be utterly unsure of the next moment, which would show physical effects, which infants most certainly are not and do not show.

I don’t think it makes sense to talk of babies as having any beliefs whatsoever let alone a belief in God. In fact, when my brother’s wife had a baby recently I asked the baby right away if she believed in God, and she didn’t say anything. I took that for a “no.”

Why did you take that as a “no”?

Isn’t it verifiably insane to expect an infant to speak before he can speak?

Are you saying you’re quite obviously insane?

:shamrock2:

 

[Leela]

Why did you take that as a “no”?

Isn’t it verifiably insane to expect an infant to speak before he can speak?

Are you saying you’re quite obviously insane?

:shamrock2:

Hi Cats,

It was a joke to illustrate a point. I’m not actually insane, I just think it is as insane to expect a baby to have beliefs of any kind as it is to expect the baby to articulate any beliefs. I’m saying I can’t imagine what a belief is outside of language. To me beliefs are intellectual patterns which can’t develop without social patterns while a baby at birth is purely biological and not at all social let alone intellectual. It will quickly develop some social patterns but is a long way from having any ideas.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Hi cats,

Atheism isn’t a religion because it’s “not learning how to sew”. It is a religion because it has positive (posited) beliefs as to how reality works.

“Not learning how to sew” is not a hobby. A hobby is doing something that is “hobby-like”.

Atheism is a religion because it it “religion-like”. Catholicism is likewise a religion because it is “religion-like”.

What is it that you think all atheists positively assert about how the world actually is?

Why don’t they believe those things? Those are the beliefs which are their religion.

I’m not talking about “atheistic philosophy”. I’m taking about that which an atheist uses to define himself as an atheist.

That “set of beliefs” is that particular atheist’s religion.

People find the arguments and evidence in support of religions unconvincing for a variety of reasons.

God, as either God qua God or gods qua gods, is not a requirement for a set of beliefs, which is a religion.

I think it is a stretch to fit this definition:

re⋅li⋅gion
–noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I really wish that atheism was called what it is as well.

A religion? How would that help your cause?

It is scientistic materialism. The reverence of the power of human reason over the material universe to do perfectly as it wills.

It seems to me that it is you who posits a material universe? I don’t make any such metaphysical claim, and as I said before, if I were inclined to make such claims I find it more defensible to think of reality as “value” than as “material stuff” since it is more empirical and doesn’t fall apart at the quantum level.

The great deception imposed on the atheist, by the demonic, is that it’s not a belief system but a “freeing from” all belief systems that “don’t matter”.

Who decides which belief systems “don’t matter”, and why do they decide as they will?

Aren’t there beliefs systems that you don’t subscribe to? I don’t think I understand what you are getting at?

I agree that atheists do have belief systems. I just don’t think there is a single belief system that characterizes all atheists or that an atheist must necessarily subscribe to some dogma, though some of them certainly do.

best,
Leela

 

[joecap]

The posts in this thread are way too complicated.
It’s not that hard.
If there is no God, there is no morality.
There is just evolution.
There is no right or wrong, everything just ‘is’.

I think a person raised in a religiously sterile environment…some place where religion or God is not mentioned or discussed in any way…will inherently know whether something is right or wrong to some extent.

Look to the animal kingdom.
There are cannibalistic monkeys, for example.
For them to practice this is not wrong.
They have no concept of right or wrong.

Why do we alone have this concept?
It has to be God.
If it was not, we would be more focused on killing and robbing to get what we want. If all morality came from evolution alone, then survival of the fittest would be ME ME ME at the expense of anyone else.

 

[Leela]

God is the source of correct morality, whether one chooses to believe in God (qua God) or not. But it is quite easy to label “want” as “morality” if obeying natural law is overridden by not realizing the actual source of true/correct morality.

Hi Cats,

I often read references to “natural law” from Catholics. Can you explain what that means. i tend to think of natural law as the law f the jungle, but I don’t think that is what you mean.

That is correct. But those without a basis of morality in God who see supposed (to them) “unnecessary suffering” in the world are prone to the sin of pessimism (which is a non-trust in God, which is a violation of seeing God as God [commandment #1, I think. ]).

I think “unnecessary suffering” is more of a problem for theists. I think this issue is called theodicy?

A belief in the nonexistence of God (qua God) doesn’t preclude being morally upright (“good” and therefore “saved”, or “savable” at any rate) due to the availability of natural law to which to listen and obey, but to be motivated to override “(attractive) immoral wants” (false morality) due to natural law is EXTREMELY difficult to do.

Maybe this is more of a protestant view but I thought salvation was about believing the right things rather than doing the right things?

Quite true. That’s why we (Catholics) don’t rely solely on the bible, as it’s not the bible’s “duty” to interpret itself (simply by it’s reading).

The basis of Catholic morality is God, Who informs us of what we need to know via His Church through the function of her Magisterium (which means her “teaching authority”).

Yet the Church points to the Bible as the justification for its teachings. It seems circular to me.

Best,
Leela

 

[MindOverMatter]

Hi All,

In the now closed science versus faith thread, we began talking about morality. A common belief among religious people is that atheism provides no basis for morality. That’s true

I agree.

Because atheism is not a philosophy, it is merely the lack of belief in God–the state that every human being is born into?

Atheism and even agnosticism, requires some freedom of will, understanding and knowledge, about life and the ideas that other human beings have or once had in the past. In reality, we are born into ignorance. As our understanding grows, we are introduced to the ideas of are immediate family members, and we live by the laws and beliefs of our families until we understand enough to develop ideas of our own.

It doesn’t claim to be the basis for anything. But that does not mean that without a belief in God there is no basis for morality.

First of all, you said in the first few sentences of your post that there is no basis for morality. Why contradict yourself?
Secondly. There is the law of survival. If your smart enough, then you will realise that behaving in a certain way will enhance your chances of survival. Some times such behavior can appear good. However, this is not really a morality as such; it merely creates the illusion that you give a dame.
Plus, if the only purpose of life is to survive for as long as you can, and to get as much pleasure out of it as you can, then there is no real space left to develop virtue. For example, if I want to live, I am not going to endanger my life and cease to exist just to save a stranger from the same inevitable fate. We are all destined to die; what rational reason is there to save life other then to boost ones own ego? This is not good; this is just about promoting the self, while clothed in sheep’s wool.
The survivalist mentality will more likely lead to selfishness, which is no basis for good at all, and is certainly not a basis for building a good society, whatever your misgivings about Christianity.

I think that people who don’t believe in God actually have the same basis for morality as those who do.

Do you believe in the factual existence of a transcendent good which measures our behavior and is the root of all being?..I didn’t think so.

Even those who believe in God suppose that God had good REASONS for making some things good and others bad?

God is good, as in, if God was not good, God would not exist. They are one and the same being. God is Objective Perfection. We know of goodness only because God gives us a sense of himself through Nature, revelation, and the Supernatural. We know of wrong, because it opposes the greater good that is God.

Christians point to the Bible as their moral basis, but if a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong.

Well…if you don’t believe in good, then you will have no reason to live according to such a myth.

 

[MindOverMatter]

he won’t discover it by reading the Bible which is bursting with celebrations of cruelty.
We read these celebrations of cruelty and judge them to be immoral, and we read the Golden rule and judge it to be good

If there is no such thing as good, then there is no basis on which to judge, nor is their any rational basis for our ability to make a distinction between right and wrong, since good has no objective existence. Remember you are just a bag chemical reactions, there is no reason outside of God to believe that you have a clear understanding of concepts such as good or bad, let alone how to interpret biblical passages. So far as the universe is the only thing that exists, whose to say that you can trust your senses and how dare you judge anybody on a moral bases. What you reject as evil, is simply a matter of taste on your part and has no reality outside of existence of God or your mind.

Now, I agree that there are some unsettling stories in the bible; however, there is a key truth that we have to take into account before judging.

Taking life is wrong, not just because it looks horrible, but because you are taking something that does not belong to you. Therefore taking life is wrong, but only so far is it is a “selfish act”. Life doesn’t belong to us, neither is it owed to us. God, as the creator of life, has the right to take life in any way God feels; so long as it promotes the greater good which is the completion of Gods plan to bring humanity into life ever-lasting good. The salvation of the soul is an infinitely greater good then an earthly life full of pleasure.

When most people perform sola scripture, they judge the bible on what it appears to be, with out knowing the fundamental philosophical reasons for why God performs certain acts and what God is by nature. Secondly, we are not in a position to know for sure that any of Gods actions in the bible, so far as the salvation of souls is concerned, is not in fact for the greater good.
You might not see it as a good so far as promoting a pleasurable life in the here and now, but you may very well be blind to the infinite good that results from Gods action non-the-less.
For instance, sometimes we have to kill for the greater good. Sometimes we have to suffer for the greater good. And sometimes as a result of a great good, such as fighting for a better world or freedom from slavery, a great evil befalls future generations; but the fact that people will suffer and die because of our love and desire for the greater good, still doesn’t take away from the good that is to be achieved; it is still the greatest good to fight for a better world so far as that good ends in God. We certainly don’t think that we are murderers and tyrants when we try to achieve our subjective ideals for freedom and a better world, so it is interesting that we expect a different criterion for God.

We decide what is good in our good books

If we decide what is good, then we are merely creating a fantasy. In other words, when you say that rape is wrong, you’re telling a lie. If an atheist honestly rejects God on the grounds that he is a fantasy, then atheist must honestly commit themselves to a disbelief in moral truths and objective values, since in order for there to be such a thing as evil it must be apposed to something which exists objectively and perfectly outside the opinion of created things. Any atheist who thinks that life has some kind of value out side the opinions of others, or thinks that people ought to live good lives, is living in a dream world.

We have made considerable progress in ethics over the years (just as we have in every other field of human inquiry), and we didn’t make any of this progress by reading the Bible more closely.

This is untrue. Most of our beliefs about good, right and wrong, come from the idea that life is valuable and is gift. Much good has come from Christianity despite those Christians who are evil. Christianity is certainly one of the many factors that helped civilize humanity. To focus only on the bad side of Christian history, only serves to distort the truth, and is ultimately deceptive. No Christian is in denial about the evils that have occurred in history; they merely rebuke the unjustified exaggerations.

Ultimately the greatest good can only come from a society that believes themselves to have a real objective purpose, identity, value and moral law. It cannot come from a society that believes themselves to have no purpose, identity, value or moral law. So, as long as atheist communities keep hijacking religious/philosophical concepts, I agree that they may still have a chance of making a good society.

 

[Leela]

First of all, you said in the first few sentences of your post that there is no basis for morality. Why contradict yourself?

You misunderstood. What I said is that atheism does not provide a basis for anything. It is not a philosophy. It is simply the lack of believe in God or gods?

I think that reason is all the basis for morality that we need.
MindOverMatter;4336434:

Secondly. There is the law of survival. If your smart enough, then you will realise that behaving in a certain way will enhance your chances of survival. Some times such behavior can appear good. However, this is not really a morality as such; it merely creates the illusion that you give a dame.

If you are talking about biological behavior such as instinctually protecting your young, I think we are talking about a biological level of morality, but I agree that we don’t normally talk about such behavior in terms of morality.

Plus, if the only purpose of life is to survive for as long as you can, and to get as much pleasure out of it as you can, then there is no real space left to develop virtue. For example, if I want to live, I am not going to endanger my life and cease to exist just to save a stranger from the same inevitable fate. We are all destined to die; what rational reason is there to save life other then to boost ones own ego? This is not good; this is just about promoting the self, while clothed in sheep’s wool.
The survivalist mentality will more likely lead to selfishness, which is no basis for good at all, and is certainly not a basis for building a good society, whatever your misgivings about Christianity.

It is very different to say that one only seeks to survive and say that morality is based on reason.

Do you believe in the factual existence of a transcendent good which measures our behavior and is the root of all being?..I didn’t think so.

No, but such a belief is not necessary for morality nor does such a belief ensure moral behavior.

God is good, as in, if God was not good, God would not exist. They are one and the same being. God is Objective Perfection. We know of goodness only because God gives us a sense of himself through Nature, revelation, and the Supernatural. We know of wrong, because it opposes the greater good that is God.

Do we know of badness for the same reason?

Well…if you don’t believe in good, then you will have no reason to live according to such a myth.

I do believe in good. Some things are better than others. I don’t have to believe in God to recognize that simple fact.

Best,
Leela

 

[buffalo]

This all goes back to the question - Why didn’t the first atheist murder the second?

 

[Swan]

This all goes back to the question - Why didn’t the first atheist murder the second?

Because he was afraid he’d be killed by the third atheist?

This question is nonsensical as it seems to suggest that believers don’t kill each other (or participate in other immoral behavior). History demonstrates otherwise. Speaking of history, let’s look at examples of societies that prosper. They cooperate with each other - they don’t randomly kill, steal, rape, etc… Fear of retaliation from fellow humans is a strong motivator. We see societies and cultures that cooperate and thrive, both Christian, pagan, etc… We also see all of these types of societies, at one time or another, warring with those who disagree with them. Often the most religious folks were the instigators of such wars and pogroms. To say that religion begets moral behavior while non-belief begets the opposite is clearly untrue. Most of the folks incarcerated in our prisons are Christians.

Religion is generally seen as a way to bring one closer to the deity/deities one believes in. If it is believed that that deity revealed rule to live by then those believers are expected to follow those rules. But when the rules are as broad as “do not kill” and “do not steal” - concepts that underlie the basic survival of a society - can they actually be said to be original (i.e., originating with that deity)? This would also seem to suggest that before the Judeo Christian God handed down the 10 Commandments the world was just a bloodbath - that no one believed that murder and stealing were wrong. This is also easily disproved. Indeed, these J/C God came along fairly late. Cultures and civilazations had been around a long time and they generally had laws about murder, etc. These were not new ideas - they were borrowed from pagans and non-believers to begin with.

 

[bobcat]

Hi All,

In the now closed science versus faith thread, we began talking about morality. A common belief among religious people is that atheism provides no basis for morality. That’s true, because atheism is not a philosophy, it is merely the lack of belief in God–the state that every human being is born into? It doesn’t claim to be the basis for anything. But that does not mean that without a belief in God there is no basis for morality.

I think that people who don’t believe in God actually have the same basis for morality as those who do. Even those who believe in God suppose that God had good REASONS for making some things good and others bad? Christians point to the Bible as their moral basis, but if a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover it by reading the Bible which is bursting with celebrations of cruelty. We read these celebrations of cruelty and judge them to be immoral, and we read the Golden rule and judge it to be good. We decide what is good in our good books (or in the unique case of Catholics, you decide to abide by what the Church teaches about the Bible) by recourse to moral intuitions that are developed and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes of human suffering and the possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable progress in ethics over the years (just as we have in every other field of human inquiry), and we didn’t make any of this progress by reading the Bible more closely. For example, the Bible condones the practice of slavery, yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. We didn’t learn that slavery is immoral from the Bible.

I think I’ve said ebough here to get discussion started? I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Best,
Leela

 

[bobcat]

The question is confusing. Is it about morality or atheism? An atheist can believe themselves to be very moral. A person supporting abortion believes themselves to be moral in so far as the mother is concerned. But they are very immoral since they are killing a baby. They do not even need to be an atheist to believe this. “Good” catholics have this belief.

 

[reggieM]

Hi cats,
What is it that you think all atheists positively assert about how the world actually is?

Atheists positively assert that there is no reason or need to obey the laws of God. There is no eternal judgement either, so atheists assert that one can do whatever one wants to do without fear of being punished for one’s sins in eternity.
Atheists assert that “material nature” is all that exists – there is no supernature.
Atheists also positively assert that one’s life ends with death, therefore whatever a person wants to do or hopes to achieve must be done here on earth. Any injustices not rectified on earth will never be recompensed or righted after death.
Atheists assert therefore, that there can be no true justice for those who have been wronged and cannot be revenged on earth.
Atheists also assert that a person’s life only has meaning in a limited and transient way. There is no ultimate goal or purpose to life and one’s death is final and has no meaning.
Atheists also positively assert that belief in God is wrong or foolish. Most will say it’s a matter of an illusion or “magical thinking”. Therefore, atheists positively judge all human culture that references God in some way as being false or incorrect. They judge all human art, literature and music which was inspired by the belief in God to be the product of illusory thinking.
In practical matters, atheists want to assert themselves on the culture. In your case, you want the term atheist abolished because you think that those who do not believe in God should be regarded as the norm and shouldn’t need a special term to identify them. Beyond that, atheists want respect for their rejection of God. You’re coming here to argue for your atheistic belief and either try to win some converts or gain some respect for atheism.
Atheists positively assert that atheism is correct and religion is wrong. They have arguments to defend and promote atheism – just as religionists do.
So, it’s quite easy to see atheism as a religion or at least a personal agenda.
People who don’t sew don’t go on sewing-forums and tell people why they don’t want to sew. They don’t go around trying to get respect for the virtue of non-sewing. They don’t try to argue that not-sewing is better than sewing.
If atheism was not a religion, then they shouldn’t be consulted in religious matters (like allowing prayer in schools). But atheists argue against having prayers in school because it offends them since they don’t believe in God.
Atheists assert that there is no higher authority than mankind to consult in moral matters. One cannot appeal to God’s law, but must appeal only to human beings.
Atheists therefore assert that the highest authority on earth ultimately belongs to human beings and there can be no appeal to a universal moral law that has an origin that is higher than human.
Atheists also positively assert that there are no morals which are fixed in place by God but morals are decided upon by a majority vote of human beings, or on the basis of hedonism (whatever conflicts with pleasure is something that is “wrong”).