Atheism is amoral

[Strathos]

"You believe in existence from nothing": You are probably trying to reference the Big Bang here, but that didn't start with "nothing". It was all the energy and matter in the universe crammed into a very small area, which then expanded. I have no idea where it came from, and I am not going to assert or deny that some deity is responsible while we still aren't able to investigate. So, I exist in a state of not knowing where that mass and energy came from, or even if asking that is valid.

If you ask two people 'Where did the universe come from' and one of them says 'From God', and the other says 'From the Big Bang', are these two answers contradictory?

If you ask two people 'Where did telephones come from' and one person says 'Alexander Graham Bell' and the other says 'they are built in factories', are they both not correct?

 

[HenryM]

Even the slightest difference points to morality being based on ideas. Otherwise, why posit that atheism is amoral?

It's interesting to see professing Christian so fervently defending atheism. You don't care much about atheists?

It's even more interesting to see professing Christian saying that morality is based on, presumably, man made ideas. On what scripture do you base that?

Anyway, people of certain moral structure enter atheism, not the other way around. It is not atheism that makes people to be of certain morals, but it's people of certain morals that enter atheism, because that's where they find home. Regarding said morals, they deny existence of God and that leads them to enter atheism. But in the house of atheism, there is no morality. That house is amoral. Of course, atheists still have morals, because God is the one that provides it, not the place where they live.

 

[Rajni]

It's interesting to see professing Christian so fervently defending atheism. You don't care much about atheists?

It's even more interesting to see professing Christian saying that morality is based on, presumably, man made ideas. On what scripture do you base that?

Anyway, people of certain moral structure enter atheism, not the other way around. It is not atheism that makes people to be of certain morals, but it's people of certain morals that enter atheism, because that's where they find home. Regarding said morals, they deny existence of God and that leads them to enter atheism. But in the house of atheism, there is no morality. That house is amoral. Of course, atheists still have morals, because God is the one that provides it, not the place where they live.

Sometimes one has to go beyond Vacation Bible School to get to the bottom of things.

 

[HenryM]

Sometimes one has to go beyond Vacation Bible School to get to the bottom of things.

Ok, but you didn't provide any scripture.

 

[expos4ever]

I see no reason to conclude atheism entails amorality. And I certainly don't see why a belief in evolution implies an amoral worldview. The atheist can argue that all normal humans want justice, freedom, happiness, etc. And these things form a legitimate moral framework

The notion that we need a god to define morality seems obviously flawed. What if that god tells us that killing puppies is morally right?

 

[Rajni]

Ok, but you didn't provide any scripture.

Where in scripture does it say that one must provide scripture for something?

 

[expos4ever]

If there is a principle of "understanding of harm and not wanting to do it to others" within atheistic existence, that principle is way less important than principle of nothingness and chance, which governs atheistic existence. Because "no harm" principle itself comes from nothing, by chance, and is destined to nothingness.

I don't follow your reason. Just because an atheist may believe we came from nothing through chance, this in no way diminishes the strength of the argument that what is moral is that which promotes universally accepted principles like peace, justice, freedom, etc.

 

[HenryM]

Where in scripture does it say that one must provide scripture for something?

Oh, you certainly don't have to provide anything, you are not under the law. As for your question:

"In your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." 1 Peter 3:15

 

[expos4ever]

Atheism denies sovereign being who created the universe and life so as a consequence it accepts nothingness and chance as fundamental principles governing existence. From those fundamental principles flow all other principles, including lack of morality.."

Atheists certainly do not believe this. You will not be able to support this speculative claim. Just because an atheist might believe that we came from nothing, it clearly does not follow that they embrace nothingness as central to existence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's interesting to see professing Christian so fervently defending atheism. You don't care much about atheists?

It's even more interesting to see professing Christian saying that morality is based on, presumably, man made ideas. On what scripture do you base that?

Anyway, people of certain moral structure enter atheism, not the other way around. It is not atheism that makes people to be of certain morals, but it's people of certain morals that enter atheism, because that's where they find home. Regarding said morals, they deny existence of God and that leads them to enter atheism. But in the house of atheism, there is no morality. That house is amoral. Of course, atheists still have morals, because God is the one that provides it, not the place where they live.

How exactly does god provide morals to atheists in your mind?

 

[jayem]

Ok, you then believe that one of foundational principles of existence is chance. And you at least believe that life came from non-life and that it goes back to non-life. That alone is enough to erase morality from your wordlview.

In 3 sentences, you're trying to connect an existential proposition, biogenesis, and ethics. Quite the mental gymnastics. But just focusing on ethics--human morality exists because we evolved from social primates. All social animal have behavioral instincts that allow them to live together in a group. We are no exception. Although because of our large brains, our moral sense is highly nuanced, individualized, and strongly affected by learning But there is a core of moral instincts that is a function of how our brains are wired. It's part of our biology. And it evolved just like our big brain, and our limited body hair, and our upright posture and bipedal locomotion. There is nothing supernatural about it.

 

[Arcangl86]

I personally like how atheist somehow manage to be both hedonists and nihilists at the same time.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I personally like how atheist somehow manage to be both hedonists and nihilists at the same time.

And your evidence of one or more atheists simultaneously expressing these views is.....?

or are you just liking something that you are imagining?

 

[InterestedApologist]

I simply don't pretend to know things that I don't know.

Untrue. As a self proclaimed atheist, you are making a truth claim about the non-existence of God or deities, something you cannot prove or “know” with 100% certainty. The problem is, in this life everything eventually boils down to faith. You have faith that you are correct in your belief that God does not exist, I have faith that He does.

 

[InterestedApologist]

I see no reason to conclude atheism entails amorality. And I certainly don't see why a belief in evolution implies an amoral worldview. The atheist can argue that all normal humans want justice, freedom, happiness, etc. And these things form a legitimate moral framework

The notion that we need a god to define morality seems obviously flawed. What if that god tells us that killing puppies is morally right?

Certainly atheists would argue they are moral. The question is why? Why bother at all? Furthermore, how can they claim to be moral, when morality is subjective? Can you really back up your claim that all humans share some collective sense of values to create a universal moral framework? I think history would disagree with you.

 

[InterestedApologist]

In 3 sentences, you're trying to connect an existential proposition, biogenesis, and ethics. Quite the mental gymnastics. But just focusing on ethics--human morality exists because we evolved from social primates. All social animal have behavioral instincts that allow them to live together in a group. We are no exception. Although because of our large brains, our moral sense is highly nuanced, individualized, and strongly affected by learning But there is a core of moral instincts that is a function of how our brains are wired. It's part of our biology. And it evolved just like our big brain, and our limited body hair, and our upright posture and bipedal locomotion. There is nothing supernatural about it.

Completely speculative. There is no way to discern that instinctual behavior is learned by evolutionary processes and not given by a Creator as part of the creative process.

 

[Arcangl86]

And your evidence of one or more atheists simultaneously expressing these views is.....?

or are you just liking something that you are imagining?

My apologies for not being clear. The OP is describing atheists as both nihilists and hedonists at the same time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Untrue. As a self proclaimed atheist, you are making a truth claim about the non-existence of God or deities, something you cannot prove or “know” with 100% certainty. The problem is, in this life everything eventually boils down to faith. You have faith that you are correct in your belief that God does not exist, I have faith that He does.

Actually, atheism isn't a claim of knowledge...it's a claim of belief. I don't need 100% certainty for that.


Nice try though.

 

[Strathos]

Completely speculative. There is no way to discern that instinctual behavior is learned by evolutionary processes and not given by a Creator as part of the creative process.

Why do you assume it's an either/or proposition?

 

[InterestedApologist]

Actually, atheism isn't a claim of knowledge...it's a claim of belief. I don't need 100% certainty for that.


Nice try though.

So you agree that you are not 100% certain that there is no God and that your atheism is faith based. You believe there is no God despite being unable to prove it, but certainly you must believe your position is true, correct? If so, you have made a truth claim if only to yourself about something you do not fully know, a contradiction of your original post.