Atheism is amoral

[InterestedApologist]

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

I made no assumption, Jayem did. Jayem made a claim that morality is purely evolution at work with no supernatural component. I simply pointed out the inability to prove that, thus making the claim speculative.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you agree that you are not 100% certain that there is no God and that your atheism is faith based.

Actually, I'd say it's evidence based.

You believe there is no God despite being unable to prove it, but certainly you must believe your position is true, correct?

I do believe my position true...yes. Being unable to prove it isn't an issue.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If we're talking about things I cannot "prove"...we could add the claim that "you're the smartest person in the world." I can't prove or disprove it...but as it's a rather unusual claim, I wouldn't believe it (nor should I) without any evidence.

 

[Nithavela]

Ah yes, the good old "make them admit they aren't 100% certain so that you get a foot in the door for conversion" stratagem. It's a bold strategy, let's see if it pays off.

 

[Nithavela]

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

You gain a lot of free time if you don't feel the need to pray or go to sunday school.

 

[HenryM]

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.

So? If that is true, it is still a result of life coming from nothingness/no life, by chance, going back into nothingness.

In that world, whatever you call "morality" has no essential importance and is just a byproduct of meaningless existence. Other people have different "morals" than you, and their positions are just as valid.

Size of the group in such universe, or any other quality, doesn't make it's values any more valid. Because there is ultimately nothing to be valid about.

If thousand people full of hate and thirst to kill somehow end up destroying seven billion, that is still perfectly fine in atheistic universe. Those thousand people are not bad. They got to exist just as you, by chance. Everything is by chance anyway, enclosed by nothingness, with no universal law that says, for example, that small group of people must not overpower large group of people and that it is bad if they do.

 

[Nithavela]

Since you wont listen to me, perhaps death will persuade you:

 

[Dave RP]

So? If that is true, it is still a result of life coming from nothingness/no life, by chance, going back into nothingness.

In that world, whatever you call "morality" has no essential importance and is just a byproduct of meaningless existence. Other people have different "morals" than you, and their positions are just as valid.

Size of the group in such universe, or any other quality, doesn't make it's values any more valid. Because there is ultimately nothing to be valid about.

If thousand people full of hate and thirst to kill somehow end up destroying seven billion, that is still perfectly fine in atheistic universe. Those thousand people are not bad. They got to exist just as you, by chance. Everything is by chance anyway, enclosed by nothingness, with no universal law that says, for example, that small group of people must not overpower large group of people and that it is bad if they do.

Atheists will want to protect their family, their homes, their communities and will want everyone to live in peace and security because that is how we want everyone to live. SOME religious adherents throughout history have wanted to force their world view on others and have butchered them if they objected.

In the modern world, thankfully, there are very few people who want to force their rigorous views on others, there are done but only a few.

Do we condemn all believers fir the actions of a minority? No, we don’t label all Christians murders because of the Inquisition or the extermination’s in America, we don’t label all Muslims murderers for the actions of ISIS, why then would anyone label all atheists amoral, as we share the same world and the same space. We are ALL better off if we live safely and peacefully together, without ludicrous labels.

 

[InterestedApologist]

Actually, I'd say it's evidence based.
I do believe my position true...yes. Being unable to prove it isn't an issue.

So, in summation, you believe your position is true based on your interpretation of the evidence despite being unable to prove indisputably that you are correct. This is faith.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If we're talking about things I cannot "prove"...we could add the claim that "you're the smartest person in the world." I can't prove or disprove it...but as it's a rather unusual claim, I wouldn't believe it (nor should I) without any evidence.

In the interest of keeping more to topic, I will ignore the irony of this one and bring us back to what sparked our little conversation. You were mocking belief in creationism by attacking something from nothing. I simply proposed that the dominant scientific approach today is fundamentally the same. Rather than address my point or present a better theory as I requested, you said you don’t pretend to know what you don’t know. Of course, this statement is False, since you have acknowledged that you embrace atheism by faith, you clearly do pretend to know what you don’t know. You really don’t know if God is real, yet you believe he isn’t and live your life as though he isn’t. Why not just admit you take the universe's origin by faith as well? Why the intellectual dishonesty?

 

[jayem]

So? If that is true, it is still a result of life coming from nothingness/no life, by chance, going back into nothingness.

What's your hang-up with "nothingness?" Is it so hard to understand that matter and energy aren't nothingness?

In that world, whatever you call "morality" has no essential importance and is just a byproduct of meaningless existence. Other people have different "morals" than you, and their positions are just as valid.

You can believe whatever you like. If a supernatural god is psychologically comforting, then go for it. But why do you need a god for life to have value? We give our lives meaning and purpose in how we live them. Our lives are validated through loving our families, and companionship with good friends, and having productive and satisfying careers. And helping other people, as much as we can, to also have happy lives. To me, it's kinda sad if that's not enough for you.

If thousand people full of hate and thirst to kill somehow end up destroying seven billion, that is still perfectly fine in atheistic universe. Those thousand people are not bad. They got to exist just as you, by chance. Everything is by chance anyway, enclosed by nothingness, with no universal law that says, for example, that small group of people must not overpower large group of people and that it is bad if they do.

I think it was already noted that belief in God doesn't make people moral. History is full of atrocities that have been committed by people thinking they are doing God's will. As Pascal said, men never do evil as cheerfully or as completely, as when they do it from religious conviction.

 

[InterestedApologist]

Ah yes, the good old "make them admit they aren't 100% certain so that you get a foot in the door for conversion" stratagem. It's a bold strategy, let's see if it pays off.

No strategy being employed here, more a simple call for intellectual honesty and logical consistency, something that seems extremely rare in the current world of atheism.

 

[bhsmte]

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

Your answers are not convincing and are pure opinion.

 

[durangodawood]

All atheists here that actually revealed what they believe about existence, and didn't hide it as if under their tails, confirmed that they all believe in life from nothing, by chance, back into nothing. Such foundational principle of existence doesn't provide any morality.

I'd agree.

Morality for atheists typically comes from other principles.

 

[bhsmte]

No strategy being employed here, more a simple call for intellectual honesty and logical consistency, something that seems extremely rare in the current world of atheism.

LOL.

Atheists dont buy the claim of god, because they cant reconcile any reliable evidence to a god existing. That is straight forward and intellectually honest.

At such time, there is evidence i can reconcile with a god existing, i will change my position. You see, admitting new evidence can change ones mind, is a sign of honesty and strength. When one claims they could never be wrong and no new evidence would change their position, this tells you their defense mechanisms are fully engaged, to protect a belief, that is important to their psyche.

 

[Nithavela]

No strategy being employed here, more a simple call for intellectual honesty and logical consistency, something that seems extremely rare in the current world of atheism.

Almost every atheist on this board will tell you that they aren't 100% sure and might be wrong, but that they conclude from the evidence presented to them that they don't believe in gods. Only a minority are gnostic atheists:

And your claim of no strategy rings hollow in the light of many other people deploying such a strategy, as well as your own user name.

 

[Nithavela]

So, in summation, you believe your position is true based on your interpretation of the evidence despite being unable to prove indisputably that you are correct. This is faith.

I've always wondered about the disdain of faith some christians exhibit, as long as it is in something except their own denomination.

 

[InterestedApologist]

Atheists will want to protect their family, their homes, their communities and will want everyone to live in peace and security because that is how we want everyone to live.

No, you want these things. There are plenty of atheists who do not want or care about such things. You are way overreaching here.

In the modern world, thankfully, there are very few people who want to force their rigorous views on others, there are done but only a few.

You’re right, in the modern world it is the non-religious doing the forcing on the religious.

Do we condemn all believers fir the actions of a minority? No, we don’t label all Christians murders because of the Inquisition or the extermination’s in America, we don’t label all Muslims murderers for the actions of ISIS, why then would anyone label all atheists amoral, as we share the same world and the same space. We are ALL better off if we live safely and peacefully together, without ludicrous labels.

That depends on whether or not those actions violate the worldview someone is claiming to hold. The Christian murderer is in violation of their own belief system. The atheist murderer has simply rejected your moral system in favor of their own.

 

[fat wee robin]

I think you're oversimplifying both the process of creating life and of creating a moral framework. The christian religion has one of the biggest books in the world (the bible) as a basis for its morality, and many libraries have been filled with works derived from this book, and still your religion is fractured into many derivatives that argue and sometimes kill each other. Also, those same christians STILL show no sign of actually being more moral as a group.

Maybe you're using the wrong book? If you want to look at a religion that turns out VERY moral people, you should look into the Sikh religion.


Appeal to Common Sense

Whereas individual christians ,or groups who say they are christians ,are not a good example of the One who created them , believing in God is the only way in the long term society and individuals can survive .
There is no such thing as a society which thrives long term ,when denying God . They all collapse sooner than later .
Did you know that Jesus came at the end of a cycle of time ,of twelve eras , in the era called Pisces . Since then , humanity and society have developed like in no other era , and many of the promises made by Jesus , have now come true .

But yes ,christians who don't like 'true facts ' , are a problem , as everything in the universe points to an ordered creation , and Creator .

 

[Strathos]

You’re right, in the modern world it is the non-religious doing the forcing on the religious.

I'd say it goes both ways, with a good helping of both religious and non-religious factions doing it to each other as well.

 

[Nithavela]

Whereas individual christians ,or groups who say they are christians ,are not a good example of the One who created them , believing in God is the only way in the long term society and individuals can survive .
There is no such thing as a society which thrives long term ,when denying God . They all collapse sooner than later.

Rome was founded in 753 before christ.

Rome adopted Christianity as its state religion in 380 ad, 1133 years later.

Rome fell apart in 395 ad.

 

[InterestedApologist]

Almost every atheist on this board will tell you that they aren't 100% sure and might be wrong, but that they conclude from the evidence presented to them that they don't believe in gods. Only a minority are gnostic atheists:

That’s a nice claim, but show me the evidence.