Atheist ethics, atheist values

[quatona]

Recently, there have been at least two threads that were started by Christians who told us atheists what our values and ethics are or should be. Call me naive, but so far I was under the impression that all that is required for being an atheist is not believing in any god concept.
I was a little surprised to find myself informed that being an atheist requires me to
- have or at least advocate sex with or between 8 and 9 year olds
- share Vlad the emporers opinion that the poor and sick are beggars and thieves and deserve to be killed.

This caused me to reconsider - maybe I should not accept the label "atheist" if it necessitates me to hold these notions.
In the attempt to shine more light on this question I have a two-fold question for Christians (you are invited to answer only one of them or both):

1. Please tell me more about the values and ethics I have to hold in order to be a "true atheist", in your opinion. I just want to know them (and I won´t discuss them) - I mean I always appreciate it when people tell me what I think.

2. (And this would ask a bit more of your intellectuality) I would like to learn why you think that lack of belief in gods in general <staff edit> necessitates me to hold these values and ethics. Regarding this question, however, I reserve the right to discuss.

 

[Beanieboy]

Kind of a strange thing to say, since so many conservative Christians are quick to demand the death penalty for others, and the priest scandal of not only molesting children, but rather than dealing with it, simply moved the priest, only to cause further damage, to save face, I can only then gather that such people are themselves the true Atheists.

Talk about End Time Revelation...

 

[keith99]

Something clicked with the OP.

The idea of Atheist ethics and one size fits all makes even less sense than one single set of Theist ethics. Somehow I do not see Christians, Jews, Muslems, those who worship Kali in her more viscous aspects and worshipers of Thor having one single set of values.

Other than perhaps being faithful to their God.

So that gives the one for Athiests, disbelief or doubt regarding the existance of any God.

 

[Verv]

The idea stems from the notion that there is no god and thus the highest judge that we have is ourselves.

Morality becomes more relative.

People are not held accountable for their actions in the long run.

So...

Why not maximize the amount of physical pleasure one can attain?

And what would be the evil in engaging in sex starting at very young ages? It is a mere physical action and anything else attached to it would simply be superstitious.

Really, the only value that we have, if there is no god, is whatever value we attach to other things. We can be our own kings and do whatever we feel and set our own boundaries.

It would only make sense to try to maximize our pleasure in this life through sex, substances and rock and roll.

 

[stan1980]

I think people who have grown up as Christians or Muslims or whatever are brought up with their religious values drummed in to them, so some naturally attempt to (incorrectly) assign values to atheists, normally something along the lines of "without God you can do as you please, to hell with anyone else". They see atheism as a religion in its own right, when all it is, is a lack of belief in God

Atheists might have 'good' values and they might not. It really depends on a person to person basis, then again you could say the same for Christians or Muslims or Jews etc. I have to admit though, most the atheists here come across as very decent people, but then again, perhaps I'm biased.

 

[GryffinSong]

...It would only make sense to try to maximize our pleasure in this life through sex, substances and rock and roll.

This is a common misperception, which I've never understood. I can't remember a time when I believed in a god, and yet most people would consider my actions to be extremely ethical/moral. In fact, when comparing my life's actions with my very christian extended family, it's rather bizarre to see. All the pre-marital teenage pregnancies are in religious families. The only child molester in our extended family was a lutheran minister. Drug and alcohol addiction - christians. Me? The atheist? Never been pregnant, no abortions, no teen pregnancies, no drug addictions, no jail time ... I could go on. Why? A deep-seated sense of right and wrong. This comes from parental upbringing, not god. It comes from a knowledge that society would fail if everyone went to chaos. It comes from the fact that the golden rule is not only a christian concept ... it exists in almost all (if not all) societies since time began.

The ones I worry about are the folks who believe that morality ONLY comes from god. Why? What happens if/when their faith is lost or challenged? Do they then give up on their morals? Do they then give in to a life of evil? That can't happen to me, because my ethics/morals are an essential part of my being.

 

[Beanieboy]

I have often wondered about conservative Christian morals and ethics, especially those who claim that posting the 10 Commandments in public schools will somehow magically make gun violence stop.

An atheist simply thinks, "Killing people is a bad thing," but the posting of the 10 Commandments suggests that someone will stop at the listing, and read, "Ok, yeah, I believe in God, that's cool, I don't have any idols, check, I say, "Oh, My G_d" all the time, but no one seems to mind, check, more or less obey my parents, check, I don't bear false witness...Oh, man!!! Murder is wrong????? Ok. Put the uzi down. We can't kill the kids we were going to. It's against the 10 Commandments."

It's also against the law, and you don't have to post that.

As I was saying to a friend, if one looks to the bible as a guidebook, but uses it like a lawyer, it comes off seeming like you are looking for a loophole.
If you love your partner, you do everything you can to help that person. When you are about to do something, you ask if it would hurt your partner or relationship.
However, if you are constantly asking, "Is it ok if I see other people? How about if we just date, but it goes nowhere? How about if I just hookup with other people? How about if I just kiss, and that's all it is?"

You end up looking to see how much you can cheat and justify it, rather than trying to see how you can show your love. That's how it often comes off to people outside of the religion. Does it love your neighbor? It seems pretty simple, and yet, some christians will try and justify rude behavior, arrogance, telling others they are going to hell, hatred, cruelty, etc., using a loophole in langauge, or bending the meaning, while unable to simply ask if it is loving their neighbor, because that is harder to twist.

 

[Braunwyn]

The idea stems from the notion that there is no god and thus the highest judge that we have is ourselves.

Morality becomes more relative.

People are not held accountable for their actions in the long run.

So...

Why not maximize the amount of physical pleasure one can attain?

And what would be the evil in engaging in sex starting at very young ages? It is a mere physical action and anything else attached to it would simply be superstitious.

Really, the only value that we have, if there is no god, is whatever value we attach to other things. We can be our own kings and do whatever we feel and set our own boundaries.

It would only make sense to try to maximize our pleasure in this life through sex, substances and rock and roll.

It would only makes sense to an amoral person. If you (general you) require a deity for moral sense than you are amoral. That's not the case for everyone though. Some have a moral compass all on their own. With that said, I can see the benefit of the god idea for those that may lack morals.

 

[keith99]

...
The ones I worry about are the folks who believe that morality ONLY comes from god. Why? What happens if/when their faith is lost or challenged? Do they then give up on their morals? Do they then give in to a life of evil? That can't happen to me, because my ethics/morals are an essential part of my being.

Let's not forget the currently popular cheap grace where taking Jesus as your saviuor is a get out of jail free card for anything?

It is a basically indefenseable doctrine, but once people start thinking 'minor' sins are OK if I have grace then why not bigger ones? where does it end?

In that a Catholic or other 'balancing' idea, be it athiestic or faith based is socially much less dangerous. Tell a little lie, balance by giving a begger a dollar. One thinking that way (still a wrong way in my book) at least has additional resistance an each step.

 

[Beanieboy]

It would only makes sense to an amoral person. If you (general you) require a deity for moral sense than you are amoral. That's not the case for everyone though. Some have a moral compass all on their own. With that said, I can see the benefit of the god idea for those that lack morality.

A Jewish friend of mine exclaimed one night, "There has to be a God! I mean, if there wasn't, it would be anarchy!" I said, "Really? We would still have laws to protect ourselves." She said, "But we would just do whatever we wanted!!"
I said, "Ok. For the sake of argument, you discover that there is no God. You have premarital sex already. You drink, sometimes heavilty. But beyond that, you lead a pretty good life. What would you suddenly change? Would you kill someone, knowing that you would risk a life in jail, with no afterlife? Would you be able to kill a person? How about steal? Would you steal from a store, again, risking jail, but also would you be able to? There is no God to punish you, only man - the police and the law. What, if anything, would you do differently?"

She paused for a long time, and finely said, quietly, "Well, nothing. Nothing at all." I then said, "Now, you believe that there is a God, but you don't obey because you have to. You obey because you want to. And it feels different know. It know longer feels like a burden or obligation or even fear."

"No", she said. "It's out of freedom, and it feels liberating."

It's simply a matter of really understanding it.

 

[Braunwyn]

A Jewish friend of mine exclaimed one night, "There has to be a God! I mean, if there wasn't, it would be anarchy!" I said, "Really? We would still have laws to protect ourselves." She said, "But we would just do whatever we wanted!!"
I said, "Ok. For the sake of argument, you discover that there is no God. You have premarital sex already. You drink, sometimes heavilty. But beyond that, you lead a pretty good life. What would you suddenly change? Would you kill someone, knowing that you would risk a life in jail, with no afterlife? Would you be able to kill a person? How about steal? Would you steal from a store, again, risking jail, but also would you be able to? There is no God to punish you, only man - the police and the law. What, if anything, would you do differently?"

She paused for a long time, and finely said, quietly, "Well, nothing. Nothing at all." I then said, "Now, you believe that there is a God, but you don't obey because you have to. You obey because you want to. And it feels different know. It know longer feels like a burden or obligation or even fear."

"No", she said. "It's out of freedom, and it feels liberating."

It's simply a matter of really understanding it.

Maybe that would be the case for a lot of folk. It's hard to tell with theists sometimes because so often their religion is used as a sheild in conversations IRT to morals.

As others have stated, I find general questions of "why should we not do whatever we want?" to be odd. Exactly what is it you want to do? The fact that having sex with children and thoughts of violence are the first things that come to their minds is pretty scary. Indeed, what would these people be doing if they weren't threatened with eternal hell fires?

Of course I find most humans to be amorally cankerous so their religous doctines often leaves me wanting.

 

[Beanieboy]

deja vu

 

[Braunwyn]

A double post in between posts. That had me confused for a sec. lol. I thought I may have posted in the wrong thread!

 

[TooCurious]

The idea stems from the notion that there is no god and thus the highest judge that we have is ourselves.

Okay.

Morality becomes more relative.

Not quite how I'd phrase it, but fine...

People are not held accountable for their actions in the long run.

STOP.

How do you get from "Humans must be their own authority and moral values are based on subjective ideals" to "People are not accountable for their actions"? This is baffling to me, because there is such a thing as other people. Look outside; you might see some of them. Most of us have to interact with them every day. Those interactions are tightly woven with expectations: when you approach the cash register, you won't punch the cashier in the face. When you make an appointment, you will contact them if you can't show up. When you go on a date with a girl, no means no. If most people did not adhere to these expectations, common social interactions could not take place. We have rules and laws in place to support these expectations, and means of enforcing them if they are violated. We are accountable for our actions without the threat of hell.

So...

Why not maximize the amount of physical pleasure one can attain?

Because doing so without consideration of the social consequences is often counterproductive to one's interests.

 

[Braunwyn]

Because doing so without consideration of the social consequences is often counterproductive to one's interests.

This drives home the fact that morals and ethics are not the same. I tend to confuse the two.

 

[Sammy615]

Why not maximize the amount of physical pleasure one can attain?

And what would be the evil in engaging in sex starting at very young ages? It is a mere physical action and anything else attached to it would simply be superstitious.

Really, the only value that we have, if there is no god, is whatever value we attach to other things. We can be our own kings and do whatever we feel and set our own boundaries.

It would only make sense to try to maximize our pleasure in this life through sex, substances and rock and roll.

See... here's where the problem lies.

People decide for themselves what they deem to be morally right or wrong. If they choose to follow the word of God, then they've been raised to think that's what's morally right. And therefore, they derive their "morals" from it. But in all fairness, many people can believe what they want and just pick certain passages to back up their beliefs. This is what Shirley Phelps and the rest of the Westboro Baptist Church have done. I wouldn't exactly call them good people, but you can't say they're wrong when they say "God Hates [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]". Because they do quote actual biblical verses. And other people often quote "love thy neighbor" or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" etc etc. The thing is, people will be who they are, regardless of their religious backgrounds. For example, I am a hardcore Atheist, and I have never had anything to drink, smoke etc., I lost my virginity at seventeen to the man I'm engaged to, and I'm going to college to become a preschool teacher. Meanwhile, I've had mild arguments with several Catholic friends who like to preach to me, one of whom lost her virginty at fourteen, and now routinely goes clubbing, drinks and sleeps around(keep in mind we're all eighteen and nineteen), and the other who also binge drinks... and claims she's saving herself, but has adopted that "everything but" attitude with multiple guys. It's ridiculous really. I find myself to be a very moral person, yet I'm constantly viewed as someone who isn't... simply because I don't believe in God.

 

[quatona]

The idea stems from the notion that there is no god and thus the highest judge that we have is ourselves.

Yes, plural.

Morality becomes more relative.

I´m not sure this follows necessarily, but let´s suppose it does: How the heck would I get from "morals are relative" to the idea that a certain (emotionless, intellectless, hedonistic) view on sexuality should be held by everyone?

People are not held accountable for their actions in the long run.

Since you trying to argue from within my view as an atheist you better keep in mind that "the long run" is not eternity. The "long run" is comparatively short. As long as it runs, I find myself held accountable for everything I do by the persons around me. Their reactions are the consequences of my actions, and I have to figure them in - even if (which I don´t think follows necessarily - but, again, let´s suppose it does) being an atheist leaves me with nothing but pursuing my own best interests. I´m not living alone on an island, and my own best interests are inseparable intertwined with the interests of the people around me.

Why not maximize the amount of physical pleasure one can attain?

Per se, I think nothing speaks against this goal.
Now, personally I happen to experience that being involved emotionally and intellectually maximizes the pleasure that I can get out of physical interactions. Also, the pleasure that the other person(s) involved experience in these interactions also adds significantly to my pleasure. That´s the very reason I interact, after all.

And what would be the evil in engaging in sex starting at very young ages?

"Evil"? It´s not "evil", but there can be other and better reasons not to do something than that it is "evil".

It is a mere physical action and anything else attached to it would simply be superstitious.

People experience their own emotions - so "superstitious" would be the wrong term here.
Personally I am striving to get rid of petty negative emotions such as jealousy. However, this appears to be (at least for most persons) a long process of maturing into it. You cannot dictate children - who usually are particularly dependent on their emotions and haven´t yet learned the strategies to overcome them - to be unemotional.

Really, the only value that we have, if there is no god, is whatever value we attach to other things.

Again, let´s suppose this is correct. Now, how do you get from the idea that I attach all values myself to the stance that I should or should not attach certain values to certain things? How does that make any sense?
I have the liberty to attach values, so I will make full use of this liberty as I see fit - and not as you would see fit if you had this liberty. Attaching values, meaning, significance to things (or not doing so) is my greatest power. I don´t seem to understand why being king necessitates me to not make use of my power.

We can be our own kings and do whatever we feel and set our own boundaries.

...and therefore I would have no reason to accept the boundaries you are trying to set for me. Remember: I am my own king. If I feel like attaching emotions to something I will do it - exactly because I am the king.
This entire "you are your own king, and therefore you should do things the way I would do it if I were my own king" makes not a bit of sense. You are violating the very premise from which you start.

It would only make sense to try to maximize our pleasure in this life through sex, substances and rock and roll.

Have you ever taken into consideration that "pleasure" itself is an emotion? Gaining pleasure from something by means of approaching it unemotionally is a contradiction in terms.

So who are you to tell me how to maximize my pleasure? My pleasure depends on what pleases me - and if approaching a partnership under the paradigm of sexual exclusivity and jealousy would deem me as maximizing the pleasure I can get out of a partnership I could strive for this quite fine - being my own king and all.

 

[Andreusz]

All the atheists I know have a very strong sense of morality. And all of them think deeply about moral issues -- because they don't have aready-made, hand-me-down set of precepts that must be unquestioningly accepted.
For me, the Golden Rule makes most sense in matters of human interaction.

 

[darkshadow]

Kind of a strange thing to say, since so many conservative Christians are quick to demand the death penalty for others, and the priest scandal of not only molesting children, but rather than dealing with it, simply moved the priest, only to cause further damage, to save face, I can only then gather that such people are themselves the true Atheists.

Talk about End Time Revelation...

Christians do not have a priest scandal that would be the Catholic church.

 

[brinny]

I think people who have grown up as Christians or Muslims or whatever are brought up with their religious values drummed in to them, so some naturally attempt to (incorrectly) assign values to atheists, normally something along the lines of "without God you can do as you please, to hell with anyone else". They see atheism as a religion in its own right, when all it is, is a lack of belief in God

Atheists might have 'good' values and they might not. It really depends on a person to person basis, then again you could say the same for Christians or Muslims or Jews etc. I have to admit though, most the atheists here come across as very decent people, but then again, perhaps I'm biased.

why have any values at all or be as you say decent?