Atheistic morality

[shickingbrits]

Sure, you lack follow-through. You believe in something and fail to live according to your own beliefs. But not everyone is so timid. Some people are much more proactive in engaging in their ideology.

If we take atheism vs christianity ideals, there are people of both sides who don't follow-through, those that follow-through depending on the situation and those who base the every action on their belief. As an ideal Christian, you would be as Christlike as possible. As an ideal atheist, you would consider that Hitler was too conservative.

In the absence of such beliefs, I would have other beliefs, my life will be the be all and end all of me. I would want to live as well as possible and no matter how I acquired that standard would justify it as my own genetic predisposition and if I failed to acquire it, would consider myself genetically inferior and protect the gene pool from myself.

Had I no beliefs, then non-belief would be my beliefs.

[chang50]

Sure, you lack follow-through. You believe in something and fail to live according to your own beliefs. But not everyone is so timid. Some people are much more proactive in engaging in their ideology.

If we take atheism vs christianity ideals, there are people of both sides who don't follow-through, those that follow-through depending on the situation and those who base the every action on their belief. As an ideal Christian, you would be as Christlike as possible. As an ideal atheist, you would consider that Hitler was too conservative.

In the absence of such beliefs, I would have other beliefs, my life will be the be all and end all of me. I would want to live as well as possible and no matter how I acquired that standard would justify it as my own genetic predisposition and if I failed to acquire it, would consider myself genetically inferior and protect the gene pool from myself.

Had I no beliefs, then non-belief would be my beliefs.

As I said condemned by your own words and you don't seem to even realise why.

[shickingbrits]

I do realize why and from that realization went from an atheist to a Christian.

Understanding the real world implications of what you believe in, lend support to, and base your actions on is quite important.

What are the real world implications of atheism?

[chang50]

I do realize why and from that realization went from an atheist to a Christian.

Understanding the real world implications of what you believe in, lend support to, and base your actions on is quite important.

What are the real world implications of atheism?

For me much the same as a lack of belief in anything you can imagine..what's so special about not believing in god(S)?
For you,by your own admission your behaviour would deteriorate demonstrating your lack of innate morality,and doubtless others are the same so I sincerely hope you continue with your grand delusion.

[shickingbrits]

Not only my behaviour. What if everyone thought as I do, and made the opposite choice as me? What if a segment of the population did?

Suggesting that life be based on atheist principles gives free reign to societies and individuals to do as they please and failure would show that you are not up to standards and suggests you suicide rather than face social consequences.

You are condemning me for thinking this way and making the active choice not to precede with it, while simultaneously suggesting that it is the way people should proceed.

[chang50]

Not only my behaviour. What if everyone thought as I do, and made the opposite choice as me? What if a segment of the population did?

Suggesting that life be based on atheist principles gives free reign to societies and individuals to do as they please and failure would show that you are not up to standards and suggests you suicide rather than face social consequences.

You are condemning me for thinking this way and making the active choice not to precede with it, while simultaneously suggesting that it is the way people should proceed.

This is where you go badly wrong,there are no atheist principles,it is not a worldview or even a philosophy,it is nothing more than a lack of belief in the existence of god(S).Nothing else is implied by it.Nada.Period.The end.

[BigBallinStalin]

Not only my behaviour. What if everyone thought as I do, and made the opposite choice as me? What if a segment of the population did?

Suggesting that life be based on atheist principles gives free reign to societies and individuals to do as they please.

1. What are "atheist principles?" Do you mean "any moral code derived by reason but not by any appeal to religion"?

2. Whatever #1 may be, how does the "free reign to do whatever" follow?


e.g. here's a moral principle not based on religious reasoning: utilitarianism. Here's another: libertarianism. Or how about ethical intuitionism?

Given those moral philosophies, "doing whatevs" doesn't follow.

[shickingbrits]

Exactly. With no guiding principles based on the idea that there is no God, then anything is acceptable. There was no creator, therefore we are not equal. There is no afterlife, therefore we are not accountable. Therefore the better we cling to this existence, no matter what it takes, or you believe it takes, is justified. If we fail to cling to existence, then it's the random fault of our genetics. There are no atheistic principles to counter this.

[chang50]

Exactly. With no guiding principles based on the idea that there is no God, then anything is acceptable. There was no creator, therefore we are not equal. There is no afterlife, therefore we are not accountable. Therefore the better we cling to this existence, no matter what it takes, or you believe it takes, is justified. If we fail to cling to existence, then it's the random fault of our genetics. There are no atheistic principles to counter this.

I'm not clinging to anything I just don't believe in your god,and I am a moral agent despite or perhaps because of this.Doesn't quite fit your preconceptions does it?

[shickingbrits]

Not only my behaviour. What if everyone thought as I do, and made the opposite choice as me? What if a segment of the population did?

Suggesting that life be based on atheist principles gives free reign to societies and individuals to do as they please.

1. What are "atheist principles?" Do you mean "any moral code derived by reason but not by any appeal to religion"?

2. Whatever #1 may be, how does the "free reign to do whatever" follow?


e.g. here's a moral principle not based on religious reasoning: utilitarianism. Here's another: libertarianism. Or how about ethical intuitionism?


Given those moral philosophies, "doing whatevs" doesn't follow.

There are many moral principles not based on religious reasoning, but religious reasoning guarantees moral principles while atheism does not.

[chang50]

Not only my behaviour. What if everyone thought as I do, and made the opposite choice as me? What if a segment of the population did?

Suggesting that life be based on atheist principles gives free reign to societies and individuals to do as they please.

1. What are "atheist principles?" Do you mean "any moral code derived by reason but not by any appeal to religion"?

2. Whatever #1 may be, how does the "free reign to do whatever" follow?


e.g. here's a moral principle not based on religious reasoning: utilitarianism. Here's another: libertarianism. Or how about ethical intuitionism?


Given those moral philosophies, "doing whatevs" doesn't follow.

There are many moral principles not based on religious reasoning, but religious reasoning guarantees moral principles while atheism does not.

How could it,atheism makes no claims per se,it is the rejection of your claims?These moral principles listed by BBS stand or fall on their own merits independent of the atheism or not of their adherents.

[BigBallinStalin]

Not only my behaviour. What if everyone thought as I do, and made the opposite choice as me? What if a segment of the population did?

Suggesting that life be based on atheist principles gives free reign to societies and individuals to do as they please.

1. What are "atheist principles?" Do you mean "any moral code derived by reason but not by any appeal to religion"?

2. Whatever #1 may be, how does the "free reign to do whatever" follow?


e.g. here's a moral principle not based on religious reasoning: utilitarianism. Here's another: libertarianism. Or how about ethical intuitionism?


Given those moral philosophies, "doing whatevs" doesn't follow.

There are many moral principles not based on religious reasoning, but religious reasoning guarantees moral principles while atheism does not.

Without defining what you mean by "atheistic morality," then we're not going to get anywhere ITT.

If by 'atheistic morality', you mean moral philosophies not based on religious 'reasoning'/justifications, then the underlined is incorrect since several moral philosophies bear moral principles.

The point of atheism itself is not to build a moral philosophy. It's a position against theism (religion)--girded usually by standards for generating knowledge (e.g. science and especially falsification). Atheism means "without theism." It doesn't mean "without morality"; that's called "amorality."

[shickingbrits]

An atheist is not confined to any moral principles. It's an open door to any possible justification for any possible act.

Where does an atheist spring from, what's the purpose of their life, what will happen to them in death? In Christianity and other religions, there is a framework within which to answer these questions, live your life based on them and experience consequences if not achieved. Atheism has no framework. An atheist may choose to believe whatever they want. If they choose to believe certain moral standards is up in the air.

That they have chosen to reject God would suggest a certain moral compass. Jesus said, all the laws revolve around this: do onto others as you would have others do onto you. If you reject that, what are you embracing? Obviously it doesn't guarantee you are a a eugenist but it allows for you to be. Obviously it doesn't guarantee anything accept that you have decided that life was a random function of nothingness leading to further nothingness.

[BigBallinStalin]

An atheist is not confined to any moral principles. It's an open door to any possible justification for any possible act.

Where does an atheist spring from, what's the purpose of their life, what will happen to them in death? In Christianity and other religions, there is a framework within which to answer these questions, live your life based on them and experience consequences if not achieved. Atheism has no framework. An atheist may choose to believe whatever they want. If they choose to believe certain moral standards is up in the air.

That they have chosen to reject God would suggest a certain moral compass. Jesus said, all the laws revolve around this: do onto others as you would have others do onto you. If you reject that, what are you embracing? Obviously it doesn't guarantee you are a a eugenist but it allows for you to be. Obviously it doesn't guarantee anything accept that you have decided that life was a random function of nothingness leading to further nothingness.

An atheist's moral range is hopefully limited by the constraint of reason. Just as a theist's moral range is hopefully limited by the constraint of reason; otherwise, the theist can carry out some despicable aspects of their God-loving religion (killing infidels is a popular one).

[chang50]

An atheist is not confined to any moral principles. It's an open door to any possible justification for any possible act.

Where does an atheist spring from, what's the purpose of their life, what will happen to them in death? In Christianity and other religions, there is a framework within which to answer these questions, live your life based on them and experience consequences if not achieved. Atheism has no framework. An atheist may choose to believe whatever they want. If they choose to believe certain moral standards is up in the air.

That they have chosen to reject God would suggest a certain moral compass. Jesus said, all the laws revolve around this: do onto others as you would have others do onto you. If you reject that, what are you embracing? Obviously it doesn't guarantee you are a a eugenist but it allows for you to be. Obviously it doesn't guarantee anything accept that you have decided that life was a random function of nothingness leading to further nothingness.

You're making it to be more than it is..for the last time it is a lack of something,a negative position on a single issue.Why is that so hard to understand?

[shickingbrits]

Not only my behaviour. What if everyone thought as I do, and made the opposite choice as me? What if a segment of the population did?

Suggesting that life be based on atheist principles gives free reign to societies and individuals to do as they please.

1. What are "atheist principles?" Do you mean "any moral code derived by reason but not by any appeal to religion"?

2. Whatever #1 may be, how does the "free reign to do whatever" follow?


e.g. here's a moral principle not based on religious reasoning: utilitarianism. Here's another: libertarianism. Or how about ethical intuitionism?


Given those moral philosophies, "doing whatevs" doesn't follow.

There are many moral principles not based on religious reasoning, but religious reasoning guarantees moral principles while atheism does not.

Without defining what you mean by "atheistic morality," then we're not going to get anywhere ITT.

If by 'atheistic morality', you mean moral philosophies not based on religious 'reasoning'/justifications, then the underlined is incorrect since several moral philosophies bear moral principles.

The point of atheism itself is not to build a moral philosophy. It's a position against theism (religion)--girded usually by standards for generating knowledge (e.g. science and especially falsification). Atheism means "without theism." It doesn't mean "without morality"; that's called "amorality."

Since atheism lays no claims to anything, accept what it isn't, I can only describe it by what it is not. I have tried to do so a few times. And I'm not seeing what you are not seeing.

Atheism states there is no God; how we came to be it doesn't state. On the other hand, we don't need it to. Without a God, existence is by definition random. If it is random, then it may be equal or unequal.

If I decide that it is unequal, it is up to me to survive through the random inequality. There can be many answers on how to do this, some with and some without a moral base attached. But what will be the logical moral bases and immoral bases that can spring from such a foundation, institutionally and individually?

[chang50]

You're not paying attention...atheism does not state there is no god,that would be a knowledge claim and a ridiculous one at that.Theism and it's opposite atheism relate to belief not knowledge.I lack your belief in the existence of god(S),I make no knowledge claims.

[shickingbrits]

You lack my belief that there is a God. Seeing as I believe there is a God, what does your lack of belief say about me?

What your lack of belief tells me is that you are likely to harm yourself and others. I don't have any opposition to this likelihood in being that you cannot really harm yourself or others, and if you are so inclined to try, then nothing I can do will prevent that. Those you harm will not truly be harmed, as they can't be.

My opposition is to merely show that there is another logical choice, so that if people are so inclined to being logical it is available to them.

Were you to state, I believe there is no God, but I agree with the Golden Rule, then I wouldn't even bother with opposition. I would be neither more nor less inclined to believe that you will uphold the rule than one who claims to be a Christian.

Were you to state that you agree to the Golden rule, but you believe that we were evolved from nothing, I would again oppose it again on logical grounds to provide people with a choice.

[BigBallinStalin]

Not only my behaviour. What if everyone thought as I do, and made the opposite choice as me? What if a segment of the population did?

Suggesting that life be based on atheist principles gives free reign to societies and individuals to do as they please.

1. What are "atheist principles?" Do you mean "any moral code derived by reason but not by any appeal to religion"?

2. Whatever #1 may be, how does the "free reign to do whatever" follow?


e.g. here's a moral principle not based on religious reasoning: utilitarianism. Here's another: libertarianism. Or how about ethical intuitionism?


Given those moral philosophies, "doing whatevs" doesn't follow.

There are many moral principles not based on religious reasoning, but religious reasoning guarantees moral principles while atheism does not.

Without defining what you mean by "atheistic morality," then we're not going to get anywhere ITT.

If by 'atheistic morality', you mean moral philosophies not based on religious 'reasoning'/justifications, then the underlined is incorrect since several moral philosophies bear moral principles.

The point of atheism itself is not to build a moral philosophy. It's a position against theism (religion)--girded usually by standards for generating knowledge (e.g. science and especially falsification). Atheism means "without theism." It doesn't mean "without morality"; that's called "amorality."

Since atheism lays no claims to anything, accept what it isn't, I can only describe it by what it is not. I have tried to do so a few times. And I'm not seeing what you are not seeing.

Atheism states there is no God; how we came to be it doesn't state. On the other hand, we don't need it to. Without a God, existence is by definition random. If it is random, then it may be equal or unequal.

If I decide that it is unequal, it is up to me to survive through the random inequality. There can be many answers on how to do this, some with and some without a moral base attached. But what will be the logical moral bases and immoral bases that can spring from such a foundation, institutionally and individually?

Logic, generally. The rules of reasoning...

The underlined doesn't make much sense. If you want to describe something 'by which it isn't', then why not discuss atheism as causing an affinity for My Little Pony?

[shickingbrits]

There may well be a My Little Pony fan site that does discuss the affinity for it and atheism. But for general classification purposes, I think there are more relevant classifications.

Chang has stated elsewhere that he believes that humans exist through evolution. This is probably a much broader classification than My Little Pony affinity/atheist. Surely some broad classifications could be discussed and the minutiae of there differing beliefs. On such a chart for atheistic slash other, you would find many categories. In some, you will find an utter lack in morality.

On a Christian chart, you will not find a person who may be classified as both Christian and immoral if they are adhering to the tenets of Christianity.

[Ray Rider]

Back on topic...

'Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air. Consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.' - Hitler

Discuss.

Hitler's "religion" was radically different from anything seen before or since:

As Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler, said publicly in 1941, "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable." What the Hitler government envisioned for Germany was clearly set out in a thirty-point program for the "National Reich Church" drawn up during the war by Rosenberg, an outspoken pagan, who among his other offices held that off "the Fuehrer's delegate for the Entire Intellectual and Philosophical Education and Instruction for the National Socialist Party." A few of its thirty articles convey the essentials
1. The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.
5. The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably...the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.
7. The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
13. The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany...
14. The National Church declares that to it,and therefore to the German nation, it has been decided that the Fuehrer's Mein Kampf is the greatest of all documents. It...not only contains the greatest but it embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present and future life of our nation.
18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles, and pictures of saints.
19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.
30. On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels...and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.

[BigBallinStalin]

There may well be a My Little Pony fan site that does discuss the affinity for it and atheism. But for general classification purposes, I think there are more relevant classifications.

Chang has stated elsewhere that he believes that humans exist through evolution. This is probably a much broader classification than My Little Pony affinity/atheist. Surely some broad classifications could be discussed and the minutiae of there differing beliefs. On such a chart for atheistic slash other, you would find many categories. In some, you will find an utter lack in morality.

On a Christian chart, you will not find a person who may be classified as both Christian and immoral if they are adhering to the tenets of Christianity.

That's true by definition because whatever they do that's Christian is assumed to already be good--e.g. razing a city, if we wish to follow examples in the Old Testament.

I'm still not understanding your beef with atheism and how being atheist means that one must be amoral. If your point is that one can be atheist and one might also be amoral, then okay, but that's so broad that it's not interesting.

[mrswdk]

Isn't the point that an atheist has no logical basis for saying that something is 'moral' or 'immoral'? Religious people can appeal to the supreme judgement of their deity, but atheists have no equivalent of this.

[shickingbrits]

If you choose to follow examples in the Old Testament then you would be ignoring the words and acts of Jesus, and therefore not Christian.

The beef is that probably no one on this site came to be atheist without considering there was a God. Most of us grew up with religions on the street corner. Chang knew the concept of God before rejecting it. In other posts he's written we can get a sense of why:

1. Why would God let bad things happen he asks?
2. God is a man in the sky, he says.
3. The Church did horrible things.

I would respond:
1. The abyss that God balances life against is deep
2. God is every particle we know, you have created a strawman,
3. Yes and none were or will be sanctioned.

There were definitely a lot more reasons that Chang decided there was no God, but it was an active decision. He could have had any God he wanted, but he preferred to have none.

In not having God, he robs life of its direction. He does make a choice (not everybody does) and his choice reflects his belief that life has no direction. He says we are the product of random mutations. He could have attributed the variety of life to God, but decides it's the absence of God which created it.

These decisions are not isolated from reality but will come to impact his activities, his world view, his willingness to be an oppressor, to be oppressed to let others be oppressed. When he comes to make these decisions, they will meet the backdrop of his belief system and stem from there.

I'm not saying his is guaranteed to make harmful decisions, I just believe when a harmful opportunity presents itself to the backdrop of his beliefs, nothing is there to prevent it. I'm not saying that a Christian won't make harmful decisions, but I believe a true Christian has a backdrop to prevent him from doing so.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

If you choose to follow examples in the Old Testament then you would be ignoring the words and acts of Jesus, and therefore not Christian.

The beef is that probably no one on this site came to be atheist without considering there was a God. Most of us grew up with religions on the street corner. Chang knew the concept of God before rejecting it. In other posts he's written we can get a sense of why:

1. Why would God let bad things happen he asks?
2. God is a man in the sky, he says.
3. The Church did horrible things.

I would respond:
1. The abyss that God balances life against is deep
2. God is every particle we know, you have created a strawman,
3. Yes and none were or will be sanctioned.

There were definitely a lot more reasons that Chang decided there was no God, but it was an active decision. He could have had any God he wanted, but he preferred to have none.

In not having God, he robs life of its direction. He does make a choice (not everybody does) and his choice reflects his belief that life has no direction. He says we are the product of random mutations. He could have attributed the variety of life to God, but decides it's the absence of God which created it.

These decisions are not isolated from reality but will come to impact his activities, his world view, his willingness to be an oppressor, to be oppressed to let others be oppressed. When he comes to make these decisions, they will meet the backdrop of his belief system and stem from there.

I'm not saying his is guaranteed to make harmful decisions, I just believe when a harmful opportunity presents itself to the backdrop of his beliefs, nothing is there to prevent it. I'm not saying that a Christian won't make harmful decisions, but I believe a true Christian has a backdrop to prevent him from doing so.

And? An atheist wo has morals is the only person who actually believes in those morals because he chose them (loosely...mores are a cultural construction and are present independent of religion). As a person who does not believe in an afterlife, only he knows the merit of the one life he has (and by extension his fellow human). This could possibly lead to the extreme selfish philosophy you think will happen, but tit for tat I think you'll find that same type of person would probably be a zealot if he were religious.

As has been pointed out, if you think even a "true Christian" (whatever that is) is prevented from doing some immorality by his religion, then that person is not moral. They pursue morality for the perceived benefit of playing their harps in the clouds.

-TG