Morality and atheism....

[VitalOne]

So what are the moral implications of atheism?

Its simple, since there is no afterlife, no heaven and hell, no reincarnation, no karma, etc...just non-existence, or no consciousness after death (like deep sleep) then who cares what you do, you can kill millions, it doesn't really matter, its no wonder Stalin (an atheist) did, after death thats it, its over, so it doesn't really matter what good or bad deeds you do, simply because it has no real effect, you'll never be thinking about it because after death there is just nothingness, anything contrary to this opinion is simply an imaginary fantasy that delusional fools believe in....

How can atheists live life with these atheistic moral implications? I don't understand....most atheists probably have no desire at all to kill anyone, but what happens to an atheist (like Stalin) who has a burning desire to kill? What will prevent them from killing, maybe the law (which is based upon Judeo-Christian and religious values) and thats it......

 

[Tyler]

Some of us just care about people. We don't care about any reward at the end, we just like helping people. Others need the fear of hell-fire before they'll act remotely nice.

 

[andbna]

You must remember, Athiesm no more specifies morals than Theism (and different theistic beleifs can be easily contradictory) And remember further that in Buddhism there is no god, and is sometimes thus described as an atheistic religion.

But having no god to completely beleive in, one may argue that what one does here is absolutly important, and thus one would do everything they had to make life better (and thanks to those all important emotions, mass murder isn't something one would do.)

But really, I cannot be specific, there are as many differing and contradictory atheistic beleifs as there are theistic ones. The large difference is that most Atheistic beleifs havnt established themselves into highly specific doctrines, organization or societies, and thus people tend to group them into one group, knowing no other way of grouping.

-Andrew

 

[one_raven]

Its simple, since there is no afterlife, no heaven and hell, no reincarnation, no karma,

I will leave aside, for now, the fact that an atheist can have a belief in any or even all of that - none of it necessarily requires God - and assume you meant to refer to strict materialists...

then who cares what you do, you can kill millions, it doesn't really matter

It matters a great deal.
It affects every aspect of your life and teh quality of your life as well as everyone else's life.

its no wonder Stalin (an atheist) did

Stalin's acts were not the acts of "An Atheist" they were the acts of a sick megolomaniac.
Just as there have been quite a few sick megolomaniacs (I'd bet, based on simple odds and statictics, that most were theists).

after death thats it, its over, so it doesn't really matter what good or bad deeds you do, simply because it has no real effect, you'll never be thinking about it because after death there is just nothingness

Regardless of what comes after death, your actions have immediate ad lasting effects during your lifetime.
Perhaps if more theists understood, appreciated and respected this fact there would be a lot less violence in this world.
How else would you explain that the world is well over 90% theists, and violence is rampant?
Do you think all violence is due to the 2 - 8% of the poulation that are materialists?
Who's the deluded one here?

How can atheists live life with these atheistic moral implications?

Compassion and the understanding of reciprocal action, perhaps?
Without simple, common sense rules based on keeping order in a community, there would be no order.

I don't understand....most atheists probably have no desire at all to kill anyone, but what happens to an atheist (like Stalin) who has a burning desire to kill?

Why are you hung up on Stalin?
What happens when a theist wants to kill?
Are all murderers Atheists?

What will prevent them from killing, maybe the law (which is based upon Judeo-Christian and religious values) and thats it......

Have you considered that perhaps it is the other way around?
Humans can not co-exist without some basic rules.
Don't kill.
Don't steal.
Don't hurt others.
Without these rules there would never have been any large communities in the first place.
Rules came before religion.
Rules came before even language did.

Seems common sense to me, don't you think?
The "Golden Rule" do unto others as you would have them do unto you" existed before Jesus.

 

[Nasor]

Four points here:

First, even if we assume that there could be no morality without atheism, that doesn't mean that atheists are wrong. Your reasoning appears to be along the lines of “Since I find morality appealing, and since there could be no morality if the atheists are right, then atheists must be wrong.” Clearly that’s bad reasoning, because what you want has no bearing on what is true.

Second, the very fact that there are many millions of atheists around the world who aren’t raping and pillaging is pretty clear proof that it is possible to be an atheist but still be a moral, well-behaved person. If you want to argue that atheism leads to raping and pillaging, all the atheists who aren’t raping and pillaging kind of shut down your argument before it can even start. By the way, did you know that atheists are far less likely to be convicted of a crime than Christians? The data appears to indicate that if anything, atheists behave better than Chrsitians, at least with respect to obeying the law.

Third, I would submit to you that religion has a terrible track record when it comes to giving people a moral code to follow. Of course you bring up Stalin, but you conveniently ignore the fact that Hitler was a staunch Christian. Remember, throughout most of the history of Christianity they didn’t have a problem with setting people on fire as a punishment for witchcraft…or not being Christian…or simply not being quite the right kind of Christian.

Fourth, if the only reason that you aren’t killing whoever you feel like, stealing things, lying, etc. is that you’re worried about punishment from a diving being, I think that’s increadibly sad. Ask yourself this: If tomorrow you were presented with absolutely convincing proof that God did not exist and you were 100% convinced of it, would you go out to rape and pillage? I suspect that your answer will be “no”. What it if were guaranteed that you wouldn’t be punished by the police? I suspect that your answer would still be “no”. (Note that if you answered “yes”, to either of those, then you’re a terrible person and I hope I never have you as a neighbor.)

Whenever a Christian poses this sort of question it makes me wonder: is the fact that God told them not to do it really the only thing that’s preventing them from going out an killing people etc.? If so, doesn’t that imply something incredibly frightening about them?

 

[Jeff 152]

Most commonly held morality traits i guess you could call them, basically what christians made the ten commandments with, is inherent in human nature an is a byproduct of evolution or has come about through societal norms.

Things like killing, stealing, lying are not immoral because religion tells us that, they are immoral because it is natural to our survival.

If everyone did these things, it would be mass chaos and destruction, so people use logic or natural feelings to deduce morality. I dont need a fairy tale book to tell me whats right and wrong, its obvious.

 

[Cortex_Colossus]

So what are the moral implications of atheism?

Its simple, since there is no afterlife, no heaven and hell, no reincarnation, no karma, etc...just non-existence, or no consciousness after death (like deep sleep) then who cares what you do, you can kill millions, it doesn't really matter, its no wonder Stalin (an atheist) did, after death thats it, its over, so it doesn't really matter what good or bad deeds you do, simply because it has no real effect, you'll never be thinking about it because after death there is just nothingness, anything contrary to this opinion is simply an imaginary fantasy that delusional fools believe in....

It may in fact be the very opposite. It is possible that very few people need not believe, but actually know.

How can atheists live life with these atheistic moral implications? I don't understand....most atheists probably have no desire at all to kill anyone, but what happens to an atheist (like Stalin) who has a burning desire to kill? What will prevent them from killing, maybe the law (which is based upon Judeo-Christian and religious values) and thats it......

Desire is never static. No feeling is. What people try to use is the mind alone. If it fails, it fails. To argue that man's failures indicate no Primary Observer is called the argument from incredulity and is flawed. Very interesting stuff.
As we grow older we begin to develop an idea for the "meaning of life". Supposedly that's our purpose, to find meaning. That's how I interpretted it.

 

[Pandaemoni]

There was a recent article on the biological roots of altruism:

Washington Post

To me this suggests two things: (i) it is further evidence that we may well engage in "altruistic" behavior for selfish, self-gratification-based, reasons and (ii) it suggests that the roots of certain moral behaviors may have a basic biological drive, separate from learned behaviors ascribable to particular religious teachings (theistic religions or otherwise).

 

[Crunchy Cat]

How can atheists live life with these atheistic moral implications?

Your premise of 'moral implications' is incorrect.

I don't understand....most atheists probably have no desire at all to kill anyone, but what happens to an atheist (like Stalin) who has a burning desire to kill?

Same thing that happens to a theist with a burning desire to kill.

What will prevent them from killing, maybe the law (which is based upon Judeo-Christian and religious values) and thats it......

Death is unavoidable.

 

[lightgigantic]

So what are the moral implications of atheism?

Its simple, since there is no afterlife, no heaven and hell, no reincarnation, no karma, etc...just non-existence, or no consciousness after death (like deep sleep) then who cares what you do, you can kill millions, it doesn't really matter, its no wonder Stalin (an atheist) did, after death thats it, its over, so it doesn't really matter what good or bad deeds you do, simply because it has no real effect, you'll never be thinking about it because after death there is just nothingness, anything contrary to this opinion is simply an imaginary fantasy that delusional fools believe in....

How can atheists live life with these atheistic moral implications? I don't understand....most atheists probably have no desire at all to kill anyone, but what happens to an atheist (like Stalin) who has a burning desire to kill? What will prevent them from killing, maybe the law (which is based upon Judeo-Christian and religious values) and thats it......

perhaps a bit over the top - atheists do however have the possibility of adopting the philosophy of "do what ever you want as long as long as you don't hurt yourself or others" ..... yet their reduced comprehension of their relationship between themselves and god, or even themselves and the material world, often makes this an impossible ideal for them to live up to

 

[original]

Contrary to your argument, I would say that some atheists or agnostic people such as myself believe that this life is all we have, so it should be cherished and celebrated. Those who believe in an afterlife could very well believe that they will be perfect in their paradise after death. What about soldiers fighting in the name of theism? The reward for killing those who oppose is eternal paradise. The punishment for disobedience is eternal damnation.

The generalization that theists or atheists have better moral standards is vague and false. You cited examples of individuals, and individuals make their own moral choices. You say Stalin is an atheist. Yet Hitler was a theist. Catholicism or some form of it from what I read.

 

[Sarkus]

perhaps a bit over the top - atheists do however have the possibility of adopting the philosophy of "do what ever you want as long as long as you don't hurt yourself or others" ..... yet their reduced comprehension of their relationship between themselves and god, or even themselves and the material world, often makes this an impossible ideal for them to live up to

Elitist drivel, LG.
Please provide a sound argument to support your case and maybe we'll take you seriously.

 

[lightgigantic]

Contrary to your argument, I would say that some atheists or agnostic people such as myself believe that this life is all we have, so it should be cherished and celebrated.

I don't contend atheists/agnostics holding that value
I contend that there are certain foundations of material life (survival of the fittest etc) that make such an ideal impossible to abide by in material life.

Those who believe in an afterlife could very well believe that they will be perfect in their paradise after death. What about soldiers fighting in the name of theism? The reward for killing those who oppose is eternal paradise.

depends
assuming that the cause has an actual theistic foundation and the war is fought under scriptural injunctions, the reward (according to the vedas) is elevation to a higher strata of material existence (distinct from attaining the strata of eternal liberation)

BG 2.31: Considering your specific duty as a kṣatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation.

BG 2.32: O Pārtha, happy are the kṣatriyas to whom such fighting opportunities come unsought, opening for them the doors of the heavenly planets.

The punishment for disobedience is eternal damnation.

disobedience results in sin (ie bad karma) and all karma (good or bad) is temporary - hence I disagree with the 'eternal' bit

The generalization that theists or atheists have better moral standards is vague and false. You cited examples of individuals, and individuals make their own moral choices. You say Stalin is an atheist. Yet Hitler was a theist. Catholicism or some form of it from what I read.

hitler was a theist?
I guess it depends whether you think a theist is obliged to be obedient to the instructions of god or not

 

[Sarkus]

I contend that there are certain foundations of material life (survival of the fittest etc) that make such an ideal impossible to abide by in material life.

And your evidence for this claim?

And are you confusing those who hold to the philosophy of "materialism" with the more colloquial term of being a "materialist" (e.g. those who hold material items - such as tv, microwave etc - above other things)?

I hope you appreciate that there is a vast difference?

 

[lightgigantic]

And your evidence for this claim?

And are you confusing those who hold to the philosophy of "materialism" with the more colloquial term of being a "materialist" (e.g. those who hold material items - such as tv, microwave etc - above other things)?

I hope you appreciate that there is a vast difference?

Actually I am not talking about anything like that

I am saying that if you want to hold that life should be cherished you are placed in the dilemma in the material world since one living entity is food for another. (hence this philosophy of 'life should be cherished" often gets reduced down to "animals that I like" or "my species' or "my race" or "my nation" or "my community" or "my family" or in gross cases of miserliness "just me")

 

[KennyJC]

Stalin and mother theresa are both fertilizing soil right now... no heaven no hell. Same for all the people who have killed in the name of god... it was all for nothing - it goes both ways... not just for atheist killers. For theists who believe in afterlife, it really doesn't seem to prevent them from behaving immorally, so I don't get your obsession with the atheist. Ask the theist why he does wrong when he genuinely thinks he will be judged by a sky daddy.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Stalin and mother theresa are both fertilizing soil right now... no heaven no hell. Same for all the people who have killed in the name of god... it was all for nothing - it goes both ways... not just for atheist killers. For theists who believe in afterlife, it really doesn't seem to prevent them from behaving immorally, so I don't get your obsession with the atheist. Ask the theist why he does wrong when he genuinely thinks he will be judged by a sky daddy.

Have you seen the South Park movie? Hitler is getting a daily dose of a pineapple through his anus. That can´t be nice...

 

[phlogistician]

So what are the moral implications of atheism?

Its simple, since there is no afterlife, no heaven and hell, no reincarnation, no karma, etc...just non-existence, or no consciousness after death (like deep sleep) then who cares what you do, you can kill millions, it doesn't really matter.

I think you forget that allegedly god killed millions with his flood, everyone bar Noah, his wife, sons and their wives.

But it's OK when God does it? Even though the people he created were using their God given free will, and he could have waited until they died a natural death and punished them with Hell, but he was impatient.

Sorry, what is your issue exactly? Nothing stopped God from being murderous.

Before God delivered the Ten Commandments, did everyone go around killing each other? If so, why wasn't everyone dead? Did Moses have to waste some MoFo on the way up Mount Sinai, who got in his way?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

I don`t think Atheism or Theism defines the moral of a man. My best friend is an atheist, and he is by far a better man than most theists I know.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein.

 

[Oniw17]

Nothing stopped God from being murderous.

You're proving his point you know. God has no punishment to fear, so he does whatever he wants, and if he has an whim to kill, there's noting to stop him. Allegedly the same as the atheist.