Morality and atheism....

[wsionynw]

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......

Vital, how do you explain altruistic acts in non human animals? Are they theist animals perhaps?

 

[spidergoat]

What prevented the Inquisition, the crusades, or the pogroms of Jews in Europe? What prevented the murder of Jesus? The Romans weren't atheists.

 

[S.A.M.]

Vital, how do you explain altruistic acts in non human animals? Are they theist animals perhaps?

How do you explain violent murderous acts in animals? Are they theist animals perhaps?

 

[mikenostic]

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.

Forget it dude. I've brought up something simliar before. You'll have better results trying to convince a brick wall or a stump.

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

I think that was in the movie Little Nicky

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

So you're telling me that no one goes to hell forever?
I saw in a History Channel show (Secrets of or Banned from the bible one) and there was speculation that Jesus told one of his disciples that if someone asked God to forgive someone already in hell, that He would and would bring them back up to heaven, but it was supposed to stay on the DL because if everyone knew about that, there would be no accountability or responsibility.

 

[S.A.M.]

Atheists base their morality on politically correct behaviour.

 

[spidergoat]

Or they could base it on rationality and the study of ethics.

 

[Oli]

Atheists base their morality on politically correct behaviour.

*cough*

 

[S.A.M.]

*cough*

Sorry, its true. They go by the mainstream notions of moral acceptability. Unless they are in power, then they have been known to eliminate undesirables in their quest for perfection.Care to prove otherwise?

 

[spidergoat]

If you only prevent yourself from causing harm to someone because of eternal punishment, then you aren't really ethical at all. It means that you really want to harm them, but you prevent yourself out of fear.

Eliminating undesireables is a characteristic of religion. Stalin didn't eliminate undesireables out of lack of fear in the afterlife, he did it to maintain his power, just like the Vatican. One could argue that Stalinism was a kind of religion.

 

[Oli]

Sorry, its true. They go by the mainstream notions of moral acceptability. Unless they are in power, then they have been known to eliminate undesirables in their quest for perfection.Care to prove otherwise?

Prove? Is that possible?
And just as I thought we were getting somewhere on the Morality: Religion or Society thread. (I have new data BTW).

I'd agree the majority probably go by mainstream notions, maybe I'll re-open that thread...

 

[S.A.M.]

If you only prevent yourself from causing harm to someone because of eternal punishment, then you aren't really ethical at all. It means that you really want to harm them, but you prevent yourself out of fear.

Eliminating undesireables is a characteristic of religion. Stalin didn't eliminate undesireables out of lack of fear in the afterlife, he did it to maintain his power, just like the Vatican. One could argue that Stalinism was a kind of religion.

Then so is Dawkinism

 

[spidergoat]

No, since belief in communism is a kind of faith, Dawkins only offers science. Atheism doesn't atomatically make one ethical, nor does religion. However, religion has shown to be among the ideologies historically used to justify what we would now call highly unethical behavior. Stalin or Lenin didn't justify their violence in the name of atheism, but for the supposed good of their political system.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, since belief in communism is a kind of faith, Dawkins only offers science. Atheism doesn't atomatically make one ethical, nor does religion. However, religion has shown to be among the ideologies historically used to justify what we would now call highly unethical behavior.

Dawkinism offers the belief that science is a tool that can test faith. Thats a pretty radical belief IMO

The "know-nothings", or fundamentalists, are in one way more honest. They are true to history. They recognize that until recently one of religion's main functions was scientific: the explanation of existence, of the universe, of life. Historically, most religions have had or even been a cosmology and a biology. I suspect that today if you asked people to justify their belief in God, the dominant reason would be scientific. Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it.

They are also true to history because you can't escape the scientific implications of religion. A universe with a God would like quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory.

 

[2inquisitive]

Atheists base their morality on politically correct behaviour.

Care to prove otherwise?

*cough* You made the statement, you must provide the proof. Remember?

 

[S.A.M.]

*cough* You made the statement, you must provide the proof. Remember?

Sure, all moral atheists are politically correct.

 

[spidergoat]

A universe with a God would like quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different.

True, and the universe doesn't look like it was designed by a God, nor do our bodies. There is a natural explanation for animal and plant forms that does not require a supernatural influence.

So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory.

Religious claims could be considered in a scientific light, however they have been shown to be without any factual basis. Therefore religion is at best a failed hypothesis.

 

[2inquisitive]

Sure, all moral atheists are politically correct.

I believe you are thinking of vegetarians.

 

[S.A.M.]

I believe you are thinking of vegetarians.

I believe Hitler was a vegetarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_of_Adolf_Hitler

 

[S.A.M.]

True, and the universe doesn't look like it was designed by a God, nor do our bodies. There is a natural explanation for animal and plant forms that does not require a supernatural influence.

What would a God designed universe look like? What is "natural"?

Religious claims could be considered in a scientific light, however they have been shown to be without any factual basis. Therefore religion is at best a failed hypothesis.

Nah its a scientific theory; Dawkins (PBUH) says so.

 

[spidergoat]

Being politically correct mean interpreting actions within the context of that society. Religion does the same thing, only within the context of that religion.