Atheism is amoral

[bhsmte]

While denying the existence of God/gods may not be a worldview in itself, it is certainly foundational to ones worldview and has numerous repercussions on someone’s morality. To suggest that whether or not an omnipotent being exists has zero impact on worldviews is intellectually dishonest.



Precisely my point. It is, morally speaking, completely subjective. There is no objective standard that can be applied. Thus, while certain societal norms may be embraced as a majority ethic, these are subject to change at any moment or for any reason. Test it yourself. Find as many atheists as you can and quiz them on their stances on a few controversial issues and see if you share the same morality.

Are you saying not believing in a god means a person cant have good morals?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Precisely my point. It is, morally speaking, completely subjective. There is no objective standard that can be applied. Thus, while certain societal norms may be embraced as a majority ethic, these are subject to change at any moment or for any reason. Test it yourself. Find as many atheists as you can and quiz them on their stances on a few controversial issues and see if you share the same morality.

This differs from theism in no way. Polls of Christians in these very forums on controversial issues also shows they do not have access to any objective standard.

 

[Cearbhall]

Precisely my point. It is, morally speaking, completely subjective. There is no objective standard that can be applied. Thus, while certain societal norms may be embraced as a majority ethic, these are subject to change at any moment or for any reason.

Please understand that from our perspective, this is exactly how theists live, as well. They just attribute their opinions to a deity and then seem baffled when other people do the same thing with their own opinions.

Test it yourself. Find as many atheists as you can and quiz them on their stances on a few controversial issues and see if you share the same morality.

That's an odd test. The theists I know are just as diverse in opinion, including on hot-button issues. Probably more so.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

While denying the existence of God/gods may not be a worldview in itself, it is certainly foundational to ones worldview and has numerous repercussions on someone’s morality. To suggest that whether or not an omnipotent being exists has zero impact on worldviews is intellectually dishonest.

You're confused.

It is you, not me, who purports to derive their moral philosophy from this 'god' character.

Therefor, it is you, not me, whose worldview is impacted by his existence or non-existence.

Gods are utterly irrelevant to my moral philosophy. I am not in any way impacted by the existence or non-existence of Yahweh or any other magical non-entity you care to imagine.

Precisely my point. It is, morally speaking, completely subjective.

No. Some of us are subjectivists, some are not.

Kindly cease your misrepresentation of atheists.

There is no objective standard that can be applied.

Some atheists would agree with you. Again, some are objectivist/Objectivist, others are not.

To the point though, your invocation of Yahweh does absolutely nothing whatsoever to address the issue either way. A standard does not magically become 'objective' by virtue of deriving from a deity.

And that is still the case even if you can provide a good reason to suspect Yahweh exists, and that you have a reliable means of determining what his 'standard' is, and good reason to believe he would have the best interest of humanity in mind in the first place.

Which you can't, and don't.

Thus, while certain societal norms may be embraced as a majority ethic, these are subject to change at any moment or for any reason. Test it yourself. Find as many atheists as you can and quiz them on their stances on a few controversial issues and see if you share the same morality.

Seeing as how I just explicitly said that we don't share the same morality, given that 'atheism' isn't a worldview or a moral philosophy, I'm not sure what point you think you're illustrating here.

Also, that's hardly profound, considering I could do exactly the same thing with Christians or any other stripe of believer, and get results just as varied. Or more varied, in fact, since the potential sample size is so much larger, and would cover a much more diverse range of demographics.

It's almost as if you are not deriving your morality from the same supernatural 'objective' source, but are in fact deriving morality of your own devices.

Actually, it's exactly as if.

 

[quatona]

While denying the existence of God/gods may not be a worldview in itself, it is certainly foundational to ones worldview and has numerous repercussions on someone’s morality. To suggest that whether or not an omnipotent being exists has zero impact on worldviews is intellectually dishonest.

I can see how it might look that way from a theist´s perspective.
From my perspective, I find it a bit odd that someone just has to make a wild claim, and in the next step declares that not believing in this claim is foundational to the worldview of everyone who doesn´t believe the claim. I mean, if we think this through....

Precisely my point. It is, morally speaking, completely subjective. There is no objective standard that can be applied. Thus, while certain societal norms may be embraced as a majority ethic, these are subject to change at any moment or for any reason.

You are conflating societal norms and the individual´s ethics here. An indidivual´s ethic can be pretty solid and unchanging.
It´s a common mistake to misinterprete the acknowledgement of morality being subjective as not having a firm moral stance.
It´s another common mistake to assume that an atheist can´t - just like the theist can - simply declare something to be the source of objective morality.

Test it yourself. Find as many atheists as you can and quiz them on their stances on a few controversial issues and see if you share the same morality.

Well, if the result is that there is some diversity (which is there), it rather confirms the notion that atheism does not inform their morality.

Now, let´s do the same quiz with theists.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Of course it's amoral, when you think about it. That doesn't mean that individual atheist is amoral. But he or she is moral for reason outside of atheism, not because of atheism.

Atheism is amoral because it's a worldview that everything including life came from nothing, by chance, and that it will all ultimately end in nothing.

So it's nothingness at the beggining and end, and in between is chance. That's the highest principle that sets up atheistic existence.

It's obvious that there's no place for true morality within atheism.

But there is place for hedonism. What seems like morality withinin atheism is just a form of hedonism.

It's "whatever rocks my boat" attitude. There can't be morally good or bad if existence is set up by chance, from nothingness, going into nothingness. But there can be pleasure.

In atheistic worldview, one person can think that peace is good and war is bad. But that's just his or her private hedonism. Other person can think that murder is great, and that's equally fine, since everything came from nothing, is governed by chance, and ultimately goes back into nothing. Both opinions are perfectly in line with foundation of atheistic existence.

So, if hundred people group together and make a weapon that ends up killing everybody on earth, that's neither good or bad within atheistic worldview. That was just an event that was ultimately governed by chance.

Yes, that event is subjectively bad for murdered people who can't exercise their hedonism anymore, but that principle - to exercise own hedonism - is far, far below principles of coming from and ending in nothingness, by chance. Probably even infinitely below those foundational principles.

Really, all "morality" is subjective, so any argument for a specific morality is an exercise in relativism.

At the foundation, morality is for entities that die; if your "religion" stipulates you have something in, on or around you that "doesn't die" (i.e. immortal spirit/soul,) then you would focus on something else beyond morality.

I don't think that atheists are amoral; but relative to other peoples' philosophy, they may seem immoral.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheism is amoral because it's a worldview that everything including life came from nothing, by chance, and that it will all ultimately end in nothing.

False. Atheism is not a worldview that comes with doctrines, claims and what-not.
What it is, is no more or less then "not accepting the theist worldview".

Theism is the worldview.
Atheism is the label used for people who don't follow the theistic worldview.
It is not a worldview in and of itself.

It's obvious that there's no place for true morality within atheism.

And the only reason for that is because atheism is just the non-acceptance of one very specific worldview.

It's "whatever rocks my boat" attitude. There can't be morally good or bad if existence is set up by chance, from nothingness, going into nothingness.

False. Atheist or otherwise, the fact of the matter is that we are a social species that live in and depend on a co-operative society.

Morality is not just some thing that we may or may not care about.
Morality is a requirement for organizing a functional co-operative society.

Without morality, society collapses and humans will be left in misery and despair, with eventual extinction. We don't do too well on our own.

In atheistic worldview, one person can think that peace is good and war is bad. But that's just his or her private hedonism. Other person can think that murder is great, and that's equally fine, since everything came from nothing, is governed by chance, and ultimately goes back into nothing. Both opinions are perfectly in line with foundation of atheistic existence.

So, if hundred people group together and make a weapon that ends up killing everybody on earth, that's neither good or bad within atheistic worldview. That was just an event that was ultimately governed by chance.

Yes, that event is subjectively bad for murdered people who can't exercise their hedonism anymore, but that principle - to exercise own hedonism - is far, far below principles of coming from and ending in nothingness, by chance. Probably even infinitely below those foundational principles.

All nonsense based on false assumptions / premises.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Stamp collecting is not worldview of existence of the universe and everything in it.

Neither is atheism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's about the absolute moral.

There's no such thing. Not even in your bible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Give us a list of ten famous atheists - people who publicly and absolutely confirmed their conviction that God doesn't exist

Atheists don't necessarily have that conviction either.
An atheist is someone who answers "no" to the question "do you believe god(s) exist(s)?".
Answering "no" to that question doesn't necessarily mean that you'll answer "yes" to the question "do you believe that no gods exist?".

In fact, I am someone who'll answer "no" to question 1 and also "no" to question 2.
Because in both cases, I insufficient data (that is to say: no data at all) by which I could justify accepting the claims embedded in both questions as being correct/true/accurate. Because that's what it means when you say "i believe that..."

- who publicly professed their belief in spirits, fairies or the supernatural.

I'm not aware of any such people. And it isn't relevant either.
Since atheism concerns itself only with the claims of theism.

Are fairies even part of christian lore? I don't think so.
So a fairy believing atheist, is perfectly possible by definition of the word "atheist".
I'll agree though, that it will be very unlikely to meet such a person. Atheists tend to be rather critical thinkers. Critical thinkers usually won't end up believing in fairies.

 

[Ana the Ist]

While denying the existence of God/gods may not be a worldview in itself,

True.

it is certainly foundational to ones worldview and has numerous repercussions on someone’s morality. To suggest that whether or not an omnipotent being exists has zero impact on worldviews is intellectually dishonest.

False. Let's imagine that you believe in the tooth fairy. It's an explanation for why money has been left under your pillow. Now let's imagine that you don't believe in the tooth fairy...is that lack of belief a "foundation" for whatever reason you do believe money is left under your pillow? Of course not, something else is. It's the same with atheism.

Precisely my point. It is, morally speaking, completely subjective. There is no objective standard that can be applied. Thus, while certain societal norms may be embraced as a majority ethic, these are subject to change at any moment or for any reason. Test it yourself. Find as many atheists as you can and quiz them on their stances on a few controversial issues and see if you share the same morality.

It's been done...and they don't share the same moral views. The same could be said about anyone though.

 

[InterestedApologist]

False. Let's imagine that you believe in the tooth fairy. It's an explanation for why money has been left under your pillow. Now let's imagine that you don't believe in the tooth fairy...is that lack of belief a "foundation" for whatever reason you do believe money is left under your pillow? Of course not, something else is. It's the same with atheism.

Bad analogy. The tooth fairy doesn’t claim to have created everything in the universe and a set of moral values for humans to live by, nor does the tooth fairy claim to judge us for our rejection or acceptance of him/her.

Let’s try this a different way for a minute. Let’s say you were shown conclusive irrefutable proof that the Christian God of the Bible exists and you choose to believe and live a life of obedience to Him. Would your worldview be any different from what it is now? Would your moral ethic change in any way?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Bad analogy. The tooth fairy doesn’t claim to have created everything in the universe and a set of moral values for humans to live by, nor does the tooth fairy claim to judge us for our rejection or acceptance of him/her.

No, but the tooth fairy is a claim for a phenomenon...just like god is. The fact that you don't believe in the tooth fairy as an explanation for the phenomenon doesn't make that lack of belief a basis for how you do explain the phenomenon.

Let’s try this a different way for a minute. Let’s say you were shown conclusive irrefutable proof that the Christian God of the Bible exists and you choose to believe and live a life of obedience to Him. Would your worldview be any different from what it is now? Would your moral ethic change in any way?

You're basically asking me if my worldview changed....would my worldview change?

Or am I not understanding the question?

 

[KCfromNC]

Bad analogy. The tooth fairy doesn’t claim to have created everything in the universe and a set of moral values for humans to live by, nor does the tooth fairy claim to judge us for our rejection or acceptance of him/her.

Neither does any god. Sure, people claim this about them but gods themselves are silent.

But none of that matters. Lacking belief in something which created the universe isn't the definition of a worldview. If it was, people would have hundreds of them - 1 for each of the gods they don't believe in.

Let’s try this a different way for a minute. Let’s say you were shown conclusive irrefutable proof that the Christian God of the Bible exists and you choose to believe and live a life of obedience to Him. Would your worldview be any different from what it is now? Would your moral ethic change in any way?

Let's say you were shown conclusive irrefutable proof that communism was correct. Would your worldview change? Does that mean that not believing that communism is right is a worldview on its own?

 

[InterestedApologist]

False. Atheism is not a worldview that comes with doctrines, claims and what-not.
What it is, is no more or less then "not accepting the theist worldview".

Theism is the worldview.
Atheism is the label used for people who don't follow the theistic worldview.
It is not a worldview in and of itself.



And the only reason for that is because atheism is just the non-acceptance of one very specific worldview.



False. Atheist or otherwise, the fact of the matter is that we are a social species that live in and depend on a co-operative society.

Morality is not just some thing that we may or may not care about.
Morality is a requirement for organizing a functional co-operative society.

Without morality, society collapses and humans will be left in misery and despair, with eventual extinction. We don't do too well on our own.




All nonsense based on false assumptions / premises.

You accept that morality is essential to societal well being, but who’s morality? Who decides what is right or wrong? What are these decisions based on? When matters of moral disagreement occur, who is right and who is wrong? Does your moral perspective trump an opposing moral viewpoint, or are both viewpoints equally valuable/right and just a matter of choice of which viewpoint works for each other? If society says something is immoral today but has been determined to be moral next week, is that morally acceptable?

 

[InterestedApologist]

No, but the tooth fairy is a claim for a phenomenon...just like god is. The fact that you don't believe in the tooth fairy as an explanation for the phenomenon doesn't make that lack of belief a basis for how you do explain the phenomenon.

Yes it does, actually. If I do not believe the tooth fairy is responsible for the money under my pillow, there must be another explanation formed for how the money got there. By not believing the tooth fairy exists, I am now forced to find an alternative theory that works. Of course, you could just blow off the need for a fairy or alternate theory and not ask questions at all, but this thread is about atheists, so that view is off the table.

You're basically asking me if my worldview changed....would my worldview change?

Or am I not understanding the question?

How would your worldview and moral values change?

 

[InterestedApologist]

Neither does any god. Sure, people claim this about them but gods themselves are silent.

False. The Bible claims to be “God breathed“, making it the very words that God desired be recorded. The Bible says God did all the things mentioned in my previous post, therefore, God does indeed claim to be the creator of all.

But none of that matters. Lacking belief in something which created the universe isn't the definition of a worldview.

Already established. However, I still hold to my statement that it is foundational to the worldview.

 

[Dave RP]

False. The Bible claims to be “God breathed“, making it the very words that God desired be recorded. The Bible says God did all the things mentioned in my previous post, therefore, God does indeed claim to be the creator of all.



Already established. However, I still hold to my statement that it is foundational to the worldview.

Sorry to interject, but the Bible was written by human beings who professed to be writing gods words, god has never been known to write anything himself.

 

[KCfromNC]

False. The Bible claims to be “God breathed“, making it the very words that God desired be recorded.

You say false and then back up what I wrote - that there are lots of instances of people speaking for god(s), none of god(s) speaking for themselves.

Already established. However, I still hold to my statement that it is foundational to the worldview.

Now all you have to do is provide a reason we should take your opinion on the subject to be meaningful.

 

[quatona]

Let’s try this a different way for a minute. Let’s say you were shown conclusive irrefutable proof that the Christian God of the Bible exists and you choose to believe and live a life of obedience to Him. Would your worldview be any different from what it is now?

Yes, it would incorporate the existence of a God. I wouln´t be an atheist anymore.

Would your moral ethic change in any way?

The way you put your hypothetical it has already a fundamental change in my ethics for a premise: That I choose to be obedient - i.e. that I suddenly would give up on ethics and morality in favour of authoritarian thinking and blind obedience.
But here´s hoping that the mere fact that biblegod exists wouldn´t cause such a change in me, and that my ethics would be unaffected.