Evil Atheists

[Welsh cake]

Atheism is not a worldview, so the guy is ill-informed and an arse.

[Shell B]

I have struggled with this question regarding atheism for a while and can see no adequate argument, its the main problem I have with atheism, it always seems to logically end in nihilism, i tend to be in agreement with much of what Nietzsche says on the matter. Theism seems to offer some form of common starting point on which to base morality, people may disagree but there is a common point of reference. How would two atheists resolve disputes on morality? I have yet to hear an adequate resolution to this problem.

The reason you are reaching those conclusions is either inherent bias or overstretching the word atheism. Atheism refers to a lack of belief, not morals, not underwear color, not books read, not style, not gender, not race, etc. It is nothing but a lack of belief in god(s). The only reason you think morality stems from theism is because you are a theist. You have never managed morals without coaching from a book or religious leader. If you had, you would understand that the starting point for morality is something that most humans have -- empathy and sympathy. It is that basic. People who lack those two things are sociopaths, not atheists, though I am sure some sociopaths are atheists. All you have to do to get your answer is ask yourself why atheists -- who you see as having no path to morality save nihilism -- are not the bane of society. Why am I not a violent criminal? You do realize that we are not violent criminals, right? Well, with that realization, you should see another path to seek your answers, though I assure you they all come down to empathy and sympathy, not theism.

[Cinjin]

Theism seems to offer some form of common starting point on which to base morality, people may disagree but there is a common point of reference. How would two atheists resolve disputes on morality? I have yet to hear an adequate resolution to this problem.

Another lie. If it were the truth, it would read like this:

I have yet to hear a resolution to this problem that I found acceptable.

Well your point of view on other people's ideas - means nothing, and just because you don't like the answers that we're giving you doesn't make you remotely correct on any opinion you have. You are as biased as the next, and the ONLY thing you would accept is for us to say: "You're right, we can't possibly be moral without your holy divine god showing us the light."

And since you're wrong - that ain't gonna happen. In the words of my british friends, I think it's time you bugger off!

[downbeatplumb]

If I were to meet an atheist who presents as a happy, confident, solvent individual, beautiful family, good friends etc (you get the picture) who went on to tell me the secret of his success in life was to lie, cheat, steal and stab others in the back at every opportunity, take no prisoners and give no quarter, be ruthless with strangers and only protect family and loved ones. How could I tell him that his behavior was "wrong" or "evil" using an atheistic worldview? "The tears of strangers are only water" would be an apt motto for this individual.

Atheism has nothing to say about people morals or a 'world view' it is just a lack of belief in god or gods. It is perfectly possible for an atheist to believe in pixies because pixies are not gods.

However most atheists are moral people, probably because most dont believe that there is anoher life they value this one and the life of others more than theists who seem to mainly have a belief in a cosmic, move to the next level type thing when they die.

You can see the fact that atheists are on the whole more moral by the way secular countries treat people. The religious ones are the most likely to have the death penalty for example.

[The Grand Nudger]

No better comparison than capital punishment.

Secular Law:
Treason (sometimes, though not always)
Murder (Sometimes, though not always)

Sharia Law:
Treason
Murder
Apostasy
Land, sea, or air piracy
Rape
Adultery
Homosexual intercourse

So, what we've got here is a case where a secular nation MAY kill you back. The list appears to be a bit longer for the theocratic nation. Care to reference European christian nations of the middle ages and see which one of these two it would more closely resemble Crux? Despite my personal opinion of Islam, I have to say that Sharia is an improvement over the laws of those last christian theocracies, since pissing off a priest or anyone better situated than yourself in the social strata was also punishable by death. Not to mention death just for the good old fashion spectacle of it. That's quite the justification for morality you have there, that leads to shit like this. Do I even have to start in on appeals, or is this enough?

[StatCrux]

Read much? I told you I'm not going to answer the question. Religious people have been proven to be the most immoral people on the planet. Therefore you have no right to ask the question. And by the way, your religion has EVERYTHING to do with it. Questions posed to atheists about morality ALWAYS have to do with religion --- you liar.



(ad hominem - nice. learn a big word today?)

Thats perfectly fine, at least you're honest in saying you won'y answer the question. I really don't understand the need for the unpleasant nature of your posts, or indeed the assumptions that you make about me (learn a big word etc). You are entitled to your opinion of course. Can you explain how my personal beliefs are relevant to YOUR response to a valid question? I'm not trying to show anything, I'm looking for answers...

---

I think the whole issue is getting lost at the moment. I'm not arguing that theism is morally superior, or that atheists cannot be moral people, or defending any particular form of theism. My problem is that (irrespective of my own personal beliefs) I can see no logical reason for an atheist to behave morally. If an atheist decides to act in an awful way towards other, how can his view of what he thinks is correct be refuted by another atheist. This isn't a question of atheism vs theism. Empathy and sympathy for others are admirable traits but vary in every person. I'm struggling to understand why people seem to be taking this personally and responding with posts that question myself as a peson and make huge assumptions about my motives and beliefs, is this the level of discussion on this forum?

[The Grand Nudger]

Empathy and sympathy vary in people, and the ideas of what constitutes morality is similarly variable from person to person and culture to culture. That people discuss these things and come to a middle ground that they can all agree on does not require that one invoke god. Not even for the tiniest of things. Our morality as a culture is precisely the product of everyone's personal opinions weighed against each other. What sin would you negotiate away if a believer in sharia law was willing to give up the assertion that apostasy should be punishable by death in exchange for one of your own beliefs(if you disagree, of course)?

[Cinjin]

Thats perfectly fine, at least you're honest in saying you won'y answer the question. I really don't understand the need for the unpleasant nature of your posts, or indeed the assumptions that you make about me (learn a big word etc). You are entitled to your opinion of course. Can you explain how my personal beliefs are relevant to YOUR response to a valid question? I'm not trying to show anything, I'm looking for answers...

I don't believe you. You're looking for the answer you want to hear ... and that is NOT looking for answers. I really think you are pretending earnestness where there is none. Your agenda is the same as the rest. I smell the stink of lies.


In addition: I think I speak for many here when I say I am damn tired of defending my morality to people who seem to have little to none.

[little_monkey]

If I were to meet an atheist who presents as a happy, confident, solvent individual, beautiful family, good friends etc (you get the picture) who went on to tell me the secret of his success in life was to lie, cheat, steal and stab others in the back at every opportunity, take no prisoners and give no quarter, be ruthless with strangers and only protect family and loved ones. How could I tell him that his behavior was "wrong" or "evil" using an atheistic worldview? "The tears of strangers are only water" would be an apt motto for this individual.

All I would say to your "friend" is that one day he will be the victim of someone lying, cheating, stealing and stabbing. That his behavior becomes a model to be emulated by others, and does he want to really live in a world in which everyone else is lying, cheating, stealing and stabbing?

At last an attempt to answer the question. He would simply respond by saying that you're making the assumption that the welfare of others makes any difference to him or his family, he's quite happy living in that kind of world, thats how it is, survival of the fittest, why should he care about the welfare of others, they are merely evolved machines just trying to survive, of no consequence to his well being or his families. Nothing wrong with that is there?

There is a misconception regarding the survival of the fittest. Genetically, we evolved to live in a social network, as opposed for instance to bears who are loners. That means our ancestors saw there were more benefits to live together than if every member went on his/her own. So, that's not an assumption.

Secondly, again through our genetic makeup, we have learned to distinguish from early age those whom we can trust from those we can't. Your "friend" will find very little solace in his drive to make everyone around to hate him. But it's his choice. He will reap the fruits of his actions. IOW, should he be caught for transgressing the laws we all abide to, he could very well end up in jail for life.

[DaveD]

I think I speak for many here when I say I am damn tired of defending my morality to people who seem to have little to none.

I gave your whole post kudos, but this bit especially.