Is Atheism unethical?

[nickelfire]

A common sentiment is that atheism has had a negative effect on the mass psyche, founded on cold logic and scientific facts.
A reasonable argument would be that if you have no faith in anything but yourself, how can you make moral decisions concerning your fellow man’s welfare?
I can agree that many atheists are a result of religion’s previous dominion on society and that included science which sought to refute religions more ridiculous accusations. Since then, the fracture between religion and science has only grown, with theist’s loosing ground, and atheist’s gaining. Science steadily brought down the bibles foundations, and today it’s ridiculous to not believe in evolution.
Attacks on the existence of god are the final act, if this, the heart of all religion, is brought down, they win. This may be the source of atheisms unethical nature.
However, I don’t believe that this might be sought after for unethical reasons, science is the practice of searching for truth in the physical world. If there is another world, most scientist’s have not seen or experienced it, and indeed may deny its very existence… But following scientific rules, they may yet determine that there indeed is no god; in the physical world that is.
So I ask you, is this an unethical search? Should this answer be sought? Scientist’s don’t pretend to have answers about worlds they don’t know about, they’re only trying to conclude that in the world they study, god is non-existent. I don’t know if they could ever do this because there is still a lot of big questions they’ve not answered and may never be able to, but I can only applaud their gumption with this fat task.
In conclusion, despite big mistakes that they aren’t alone in making, I don’t believe that atheists are unethical, I think that, generally, they care about their fellow man as much as the religious man next to them, because they believe it’s a natural impulse. I believe that they care about the welfare of their planet as much or more than the man of faith next to them because they believe it’s the only home they and their children will live on. Love may never be explainable by scientific means, but I doubt that they deny its irrefutable existence. Love is universal…

[murex]

Athiesm does not make a person unethical. I used to be athiest for a short time, and I still had morals.

[nickelfire]

Thanks for commenting Murex, I actually feel pretty strongly about this and would appreciate further opinions from all.

[soulatom]

nickelfire said:

A reasonable argument would be that if you have no faith in anything but yourself, how can you make moral decisions concerning your fellow man’s welfare?

Attacks on the existence of god are the final act, if this, the heart of all religion, is brought down, they win. This may be the source of atheisms unethical nature.
However, I don’t believe that this might be sought after for unethical reasons, science is the practice of searching for truth in the physical world. If there is another world, most scientist’s have not seen or experienced it, and indeed may deny its very existence… But following scientific rules, they may yet determine that there indeed is no god; in the physical world that is.
So I ask you, is this an unethical search?

In conclusion, despite big mistakes that they aren’t alone in making, I don’t believe that atheists are unethical,

I really am not that comfortable spouting off about the nature of God, but seeing as how you're asking....

I feel that there is a general misunderstanding attached to the word "GOD" like what runs through your mind upon just hearing the word? Most of it is "indcotrination". And I would believe that the same applies to "ATHIESM" and "unethical".

"Theos" means "God" ( atheism = "a" against "theos"), theos as a word does not define God or religion or attach any belief system to God, just plainly states God.

"ethics" the discipline dealing with what is good and bad or right and wrong or with moral duty and obligation

I think that Athiesm as you're relating it is against organized religion and is also a commonly misused concept. Further, that alot of people may have had periods of what they felt were atheism in their life and then returned to their original balance.

It is almost an oxymoron by definition to say that you can be an athiest and ethical.

How can one determine right from wrong, good from bad without looking to a higher understanding outside of ones self or beyond where one is at to begin with?

And to the scientific aspect of this idea again I think that there is a real perspective here dealing with the physical universe and the spiritual universe. And who is to say that Science won't arrive at a validation of God in the physical world?

I believe in evolution and God and the two are not conflicting ideas for me.

MagnetMan wrote a really good thread on Cause and Effect that covers this subject well I thought.

[Magnet Man]

murex said:

Athiesm does not make a person unethical. I used to be athiest for a short time, and I still had morals.

Social morals can be understood and agreed upon by the intellect, but cannot be sustained if constant superstitious input is repressed in any way.

If you commit an outward social trespass you can be prosecuted.
But what of the endless inner trespasses against yourself? How are they to be corrected if there is no inner policeman on guard?

Russia tried atheism and ended up after the initial ferver and sincerity of the Revolutionaries wore off three genrations later. as a corrupted society. Moral standards gradually depreciated, via rational arguments about "national expediencies" and "the end justified the means" etc. etc, There was no Absolute Standard of Goodness left in place as a model for constant correcttion.

Marx was wrong, spiritual belief is not an opiate. It is an instrinsic aspect of the human psyche.

Thus Communism the world's first large scale attempt at egalitarianimm failed miserably, which is a great pity - for that is the onkly way we can save our world. So it is essential that spirituality makes a large scale come-back, before we try for egalitarianism again.

[rainshine87]

The more important question is surely whether atheism leads to moral relativism. I've debated about this with atheists before and some agreed that it did, whilst neo-darwinists assured me that it didn't. The debate ended when we realised that we differed in our definition of the term 'purpose'. I argued that if life has no purpose, there is no reason to preserve life, and so no good reason for morality (or something like that, it was a little more complex). But he replied that life did have a purpose - that it was to carry on living. I understandably thought this was absurd. Our differing definition was that I considered purpose 'what a thing came into being before', whilst he considered it as 'what a thing chooses to do once it has come into being'.

[know knot]

a·the·ist n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Is Atheism unethical? Well, ethics define the good and the bad of ones motives. I've never been able to get a straight answer out of an "atheist". What do you believe in, if not some greater force?

admin said:

Russia tried atheism and ended up after the initial ferver and sincerity of the Revolutionaries wore off three genrations later. as a corrupted society.

As in Russia, imo, the individual becomes corrupt over time. How do you measure what is right and what is wrong? Intuition? Is your own ego god? What do you compare yourself and your actions to if not something higher than yourself?

tough subject.

knot

[nickelfire]

soulatom said:

It is almost an oxymoron by definition to say that you can be an athiest and ethical.

Many good and honest people might really be offended by that statement, and this isn't a personal attack, I just don’t agree. Definitions aside, my objection is that if you aren't harming others, who cares they think they you go when you die? I would say that more atrocities and unethical decisions are made because of religious reasons, because of extremely misguided perceptions of god, and nothing to do with the lack of his existence. Atheists have no excuse in that regards because they are motivated by rational means and killing and genocide and racial hatred and sectarian division are scientifically irrational and I'd be surprised to find that many out there with these objectives. Divine justice and holy wars and ethnic cleansing on the other hand…

How can one determine right from wrong, good from bad without looking to a higher understanding outside of ones self or beyond where one is at to begin with?

If you’re talking about moral standards then I understand where your coming from, but if god is the highest standard then very few people, especially really religious people, can claim that nod.
Ethics and goodness don't need to be scientifically validated for merits, everyone can see when someone is leading a good, healthy and caring life, and everyone can appreciate and strive for the same.

And to the scientific aspect of this idea again I think that there is a real perspective here dealing with the physical universe and the spiritual universe. And who is to say that Science won't arrive at a validation of God in the physical world?

I already explained that I have my doubts in their abilities to do this because it’s seems to be impossible to me. I simply said that I don’t think its wrong for them to try.

I believe in evolution and God and the two are not conflicting ideas for me.

I completely agree.
All I’m saying is that it doesn’t bother me, and I don’t think it’s such a bad thing that there are people who think otherwise. I don’t condone their treatment of theists, but both sides have been and are still fighting just as nasty.

[nickelfire]

admin said:

Russia tried atheism and ended up after the initial ferver and sincerity of the Revolutionaries wore off three genrations later. as a corrupted society. Moral standards gradually depreciated, via rational arguments about "national expediencies" and "the end justified the means" etc. etc, There was no Absolute Standard of Goodness left in place as a model for constant correcttion.

These are really good points but if you think about it, every other society has ended up the same or worse, the time it took to do it is irrelevant, each eventually became corrupt with or without belief in god.
How have we as a society made moral decisions or elected moral leadership? Or the rest of the world for that matter? Since when has man not been inhuman to man? I can’t make this a statement because I don’t know, but I would contend that our continual degradation as a moral society is because of some other reason...

[Kwan Yu]

nickelfire said:

I would contend that our continual degradation as a moral society is because of some other reason...

Man cannot be defined by the immoral minority.
Even though it wields the major clout.

[nickelfire]

kwanyu said:

Man cannot be defined by the immoral minority.
Even though it wields the major clout.

I wouldn’t agree that they are all that defines us as a specie, atheism is far more recent and has no history in comparison to our religious or pagan ancestors...
I would consider them another group trying to express their ideals and I’d call us hypocrites rather than peace and understanding loving 'global stewards' if we discriminate against their equality and right to their own beliefs.

[soulatom]

nickelfire said:

Many good and honest people might really be offended by that statement, and this isn't a personal attack, I just don’t agree. Definitions aside, my objection is that if you aren't harming others, who cares they think they you go when you die?

My question to you would be without some standard of measure or some agreed upon moral conduct how would you have a clue whether or not you are good and not harming anyone? Is atheism just about where you go when you die? Because many of our religions describe where you go and how you go differently than one anotherand I can't see that that would be a definition for atheism.

I would say that more atrocities and unethical decisions are made because of religious reasons, because of extremely misguided perceptions of god, and nothing to do with the lack of his existence.Atheists have no excuse in that regards because they are motivated by rational means and killing and genocide and racial hatred and sectarian division are scientifically irrational and I'd be surprised to find that many out there with these objectives. Divine justice and holy wars and ethnic cleansing on the other hand…

I think that these are sweeping geralizations, though history shows that the atrocities are there, organized religion has not been behind all of them. The ethnic cleansing going on today is not religous based. As MM stated I don't think we can make valued judgements based on extremities.

Secondly where does your data come from that athiests are always or mostly rational and arrived at their conclusions through rational deduction? There is the scientific community that seeks to dispove scientifically religous structures or metaphysic experience and principle but many of these same scientists attend church regaurly and believe in God.
As for athiests not being prone to racial hatred...genocide...etc. because they are rational, well that just robs me of a response almost. After all if we are categorizing "scientists" as "athiests" as I think you are, who on earth is making all those bombs, stealth fighters......rocket launchers....

atheism is far more recent and has no history in comparison to our religious or pagan ancestors...
I would consider them another group trying to express their ideals and I’d call us hypocrites rather than peace and understanding loving 'global stewards' if we discriminate against their equality and right to their own beliefs.

India : Probably the first sign of skeptic thought comes from the Rig-Veda, a text which is thought to have been written around 1000 BC.

Around 500 BC, Buddhism, inspired by the Rig-Veda, became a theistic philosophy. Jainism, an atheistic religion, also began around that time.

And who the is discriminating against athiests?(Imean that in the nicest possible way)

[nickelfire]

soulatom said:

nickelfire said:

Many good and honest people might really be offended by that statement, and this isn't a personal attack, I just don’t agree. Definitions aside, my objection is that if you aren't harming others, who cares they think they you go when you die?

My question to you would be without some standard of measure or some agreed upon moral conduct how would you have a clue whether or not you are good and not harming anyone? Is atheism just about where you go when you die? Because many of our religions describe where you go and how you go differently than one anotherand I can't see that that would be a definition for atheism.

I had some serious typos in my quote here, sorry! The question I was trying to ask was what difference does it make that they don’t believe in god and any kind of afterlife? I can see I worded it really wrong though.
Anyways, as an answer to our moral conduct, I myself don’t model my behavior on a godly standard because I’ve never had any godly experiences. This is subjective but I don’t think god is good or bad, ethical or unethical, he instilled in us flaws as well as merits, and it’s up to us, as humans, to act on one or the other. I think these are natural impulses, that atheists can see as well, but again, these are only my thoughts on it.

I think that these are sweeping geralizations, though history shows that the atrocities are there, organized religion has not been behind all of them. The ethnic cleansing going on today is not religous based. As MM stated I don't think we can make valued judgements based on extremities.

Secondly where does your data come from that athiests are always or mostly rational and arrived at their conclusions through rational deduction? There is the scientific community that seeks to dispove scientifically religous structures or metaphysic experience and principle but many of these same scientists attend church regaurly and believe in God.
As for athiests not being prone to racial hatred...genocide...etc. because they are rational, well that just robs me of a response almost. After all if we are categorizing "scientists" as "athiests" as I think you are, who on earth is making all those bombs, stealth fighters......rocket launchers....

Again, I think I worded my statement wrong but I’m not going to try and correct it. I was speaking on the extremities that you mentioned, but anyways. Personally, I think that if atheists are unethical, so is everyone else because we’ve all committed the same amount of injustices. This is my only point if you boil down to it. ;D

India : Probably the first sign of skeptic thought comes from the Rig-Veda, a text which is thought to have been written around 1000 BC.

Around 500 BC, Buddhism, inspired by the Rig-Veda, became a theistic philosophy. Jainism, an atheistic religion, also began around that time.

And who the is discriminating against athiests?(Imean that in the nicest possible way)

That’s interesting and good to know thanks. Also, I’m speaking generally, I’m not saying that anyone is discriminating against anyone, I’m simply saying that we can’t because everyone can be equally misguided and atheists are not alone or are no exception to this rule.

[Kwan Yu]

nickelfire said:

I think these are natural impulses, that atheists can see as well, but again, these are only my thoughts on it.

Inspirations are not natural impulses.
If no spirit
then from wence comes inspired idea?

[piper]

nickelfire said:

Again, I think I worded my statement wrong but I’m not going to try and correct it.

Wise man ;D

I was speaking on the extremities that you mentioned, but anyways. Personally, I think that if atheists are unethical, so is everyone else because we’ve all committed the same amount of injustices. This is my only point if you boil down to it.

I don't think any rational discussion can take place by viewing extremities, polarities.......
I agree with you that we are all unethical. Okay but what guide do we use to return from the act of unjustice or unacceptable behavior? This is where I think the average person adhering to a religous or spiritual practice may have a leg up on the atheistic person. IMO