What good is Atheism?

[John Eric Tiessen]

WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING

Extreme view points are likely to be expressed in this discussion and a flame war will most likely break out. Please do not continue with your reading if you are any of the following: Easily offended, weak minded, pregnant, nursing, or may become pregnant (this debate will probably ruin the mood if you are trying to get pregnant)

The question: Atheism is a system of belief that purports to believe that there is no God/gods and no divine powers in our world. That said Atheism believes that the world is as we see it. With that in mind the obvious question that most theist would have is, what is the reason for doing good then? I will concede to the Atheists that doing good out of feeling guilty towards a higher power isn't really doing good, it is being scared. When Atheists do good then they are doing out of genuine compassion more often then not. If they are doing it for selfish reasons well then they are no better than the theists. Unfortunately however, there is a lot of blood on the hands of both the theists, and more recently, the atheists.

Here is what I am getting at. In the 20th century there where more people living on this planet than there had been at any other time in the past. The blood shed of the 20th century is also some of the greatest that humanity has ever seen. Communism played no small part in that blood shed. Communism is a political philosophy that believes at heart that there is no God/gods. Therefore, almost all communists were atheists (in theory). This included people like Stalin, Mao Zedong, and members of the Khmer Rouge. According to The Black book of Communism, in the 20th century there where between 85 and 100 million people where killed in various communist uprisings and takeovers. Compare that to the Holocaust, around 10 million people.

What I want is a reasonable answer from theists and atheists as to why so many enlightened people would do such a horrible thing over the course of the 20th century. Atheists have a right to criticize theists for their crimes against humanity. However, these crimes must be answered for too.

If atheism is so superior then why did all this death and destruction occur in communist societies?

*Note: In no way am I trying to say that Atheism is morally wrong! It is a philosophy that should be respected and appreciated. This is just a bit of history that has always bothered me. By the way the statistics given can be found on both Wikipedia and Amazon, just look on pg. 4, in The Black Book of Communism.

[patch]

Being an athiest however does mean that you cannot believe in an objective morality. You cannot objectively say that something is right or wrong.

Sorry, I rather resent the "can't be good without a god" sort of statements.

I can only speak for myself, as I have no "atheist" community that is built specifically around/shares my ideas. I have many  like minded atheist friends and colleagues but, for as much as we do good together, I can't speak for atheists anywhere else.

Being atheist, in my experience, means not being morally lazy. I don't have the comfort of "right and wrong" being clearly spelled out for me. I have to think about it. My actions will be justified by the optimization of function and the minimizing of pain and suffering. "It says in the bible/torah/quran/etc..." is not an acceptable excuse for contributing to suffering or causing harm. (I don't think you made such statements. I only illustrate how easily a theist may justify their immoral behavoir with such righteousness.)

And I am not so arrogant to say I am the most moral person ever. I linger in gray areas that I haven't sussed out yet. I find many dilemmas. Sometimes, I do the wrong thing for the right reason. Something I do the right thing for the wrong reason. Sometimes I think I'm doing the right thing and end up being totally wrong. And it sometimes it sucks and people aren't always so forgiving or understanding. But I learn and I keep trying. It would be much easier to fall back on a god or a book to call the shots for me but I cannot ignore the pain and suffering such things lead good people to.

Admittedly, I feel great disappoint and even a heavy sadness when I see people mistreat each other. There is no rule that says other people must be as considerate of me, or anyone else, as I am of them. It's a bummer, but I have no authority to speak from in that regard. No gods or books to refer the world to.I have no, nor do I want, a means to enforce "good." You don't "enforce" morals. You live them out. I do not expect people to search for the highest moral path - but I appreciate their sincerest efforts.

I do not think that people are inherently bad but being not-so-self-centered is a difficult thing for a person to do. Anyone who makes an honest effort to remove themselves of their own interests for the sake of other humans, even if just for a moment, is (for the time being) a good, moral person - with or without gods and magic.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Sorry, I rather resent the "can't be good without a god" sort of statements.

That isn't what I said. You can be what you call "good" but you have to accept that what you call good is no better than the "good" of someone you might call evil.

[patch]

I lumped your statements up with the sentiment.

And yes, what I call good might be evil to someone else but, without an absolute power dictating good and evil, we have the flexibility to argue, to try, to fail, to somehow adjust our views to find a middle ground.

If I were to submit to an absolute "good" and recognize morality as something clearly defined, I may not consider communication, compromise, or cooperation as viable options in life. I might steamroll over other people, creating strife, perpetuating suffering, stifling voices, and crushing anyone who deviated from what I accept to be morality. If my take of "good" is aligned with a perfect authority, what reason would I have to consider my actions? To unravel what "good" is? To see it as complex and differing from one case to another? My questions would be answered for me and, as long as I followed the rules - no matter how wrong they prove to be - I will always be "good." I will always be justified?

Such an absolute is disastrous. And such faults are not exclusive to religious beliefs, however, they are often rooted there as religious beliefs often go unquestioned due to their absolutes.

I have my convictions and I have my personal "absolutes". But, without a moral authority in my life, I am not under the delusion that I, or my source of morality, can be infallible.

[Contradiction]

People might have done it, but they had no objective authority, and thus they were more eaisly swept away then if they had done and had called him on it.

Atheists (or at least I) don't believe their truths to be subjective in the sense that they apply on whim. It's a code that results from human interaction and empathy. It's as definitive as yours (don't murder, don't steal, rape is wrong, be good to thy neighbor, etc.). Atheist morality isn't any weaker than religious morality because it has the same amount of conviction behind it; we just disagree on the source.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Except that human empathy and interaction are (in an athiestic universe) arbitary and meaningless. Arbitary because you may choose that way, but what if someone else does not. What if someone else empathises differently, and there are more of them than you and they overpower you. Your morality is subsumed and overcome. In an athiestic universe, there is no right or wrong.

[Contradiction]

What if someone else empathises differently, and there are more of them than you and they overpower you.

That problem still exists in this world, in which a majority of people are religious, so I don't see where your point is.

In an athiestic universe, there is no right or wrong.

In the grand scheme of things, no, because it's unimportant and irrelevant. In day-to-day life, though, there is, so there's still an influence of morality on actual lives - which is important and extremely relevant as a human.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

That problem still exists in this world, in which a majority of people are religious, so I don't see where your point is.

You are missing the point. In an atheistic universe (not where most people don't believe in God, but where there ISNT a god), "right" or "wrong" is simply subjective. There is no universal truth to either. In a thiestic universe, morality is absolute and has power.

In the grand scheme of things, no, because it's unimportant and irrelevant. In day-to-day life, though, there is, so there's still an influence of morality on actual lives - which is important and extremely relevant as a human.

But why choose the day to day life. That perspective is entirely subjective.

[patch]

In a thiestic universe, morality is absolute and has power.

I argue that such an absolute is a devastation to morality, not characteristic of it.

[Michael Lee]

why do you keep believing that because we(atheists) dont believe in a higher power that we dont believe in right or wrong? Like we have said before, using empathy (ability to connect with others and understand how they feel) and our experiences we come to the conclusion ourselves what is right and wrong. that's still a sense of right and wrong! For example, i think i can say this for some of us when i say we dont think its RIGHT to tell people they will be healed by "holy water" and then let the find out the hard way that it doesnt do jack shit. Because we believe falso hope is WRONG. Using our empathy and experiences we make our own morality, we dont just go along with another set of rules out of blind faith. Sorry if we dont need to be in fear of a higher power to develop a sense of right or wrong.

 

as i said b4 :Morality wasnt created by religion and is not dependant on religion. so therefore others (including us non-believers) are capable of morality of similar caliber.

[Tazlima]

I see what he's saying.  He's basically saying that since atheists don't have a written code of conduct, they're all just making up morality as they go along, and feels that this is an inferior state of affairs.

However, I would have to question the morality of people who find all their values in an old document, however venerated.  Why?  Because if you find yourself presented with an issue where the right and wrong of it are questionable (the classic example is, "What punishment, if any, is appropriate for the man who steals bread to feed his family?), then yes, they have a book of regulations to follow.  If the solution provided by that book doesn't feel right, they're absolved of any responsibility for the final decision.  i.e. "Well, I might have done differently, but this book says I did right, so I don't have to feel guilty for my decision."

We all know what happens when people follow the letter of the rules rather then the spirit of them.  You get kids expelled from school for having some aspirin in their backpack, because of the school's "zero tolerence" policy for drugs.  You get the man who shot his child's killer sentenced to life in prison because it was, technically, premeditated murder.

Atheists don't have this easy way out of decision-making.  They have to decide for themselves the right or wrong of their actions and judgements.  Frankly, I believe this would result in an enhanced sense of morality, because the decision and therefore the blame for choosing poorly rests squarely on their shoulders.  There's no "the Devil made me do it" or "The Bible says it's ok." to fall back upon.

**I once posted a theoretical question on a different forum.  I asked, "If tomorrow, you discovered you were absolutely wrong, with indisputable proof.  Would you change how you live, and how would that change?"  So for the religious folks, say they are 100% convinced tomorrow that there is no God.  For the Atheists, tomorrow you wake up to the news that there IS a God, and that it has been proven.  For the sake of the discussion, everyone in the world is 100% totally convinced of their new stance by whatever data has come to light.

The atheists and agnostics basically all said they wouldn't change a thing (beyond possibly attending church).  They live how they feel is right, and they all felt that any God that existed would be ok with their behavior. 

The religious folks were divided into three groups.

About half said the same thing as the athiests.  They felt they live life as good people and wouldn't change anything (except skipping church).

Some of them said, "Oh, but NOTHING could ever convince me that there wasn't a God (even though this is a hypothetical where it has been proven, and everybody accepts that proof) so I'd go on believing in God despite the news (i.e. the copout "I don't want to answer that" answer). 

A couple, kinda scary, religious folks outright stated that they'd begin to lie, cheat, and steal, since there would no longer be any reason not to.  They were surprised that others didn't feel this way.

That third group frightens me, and makes me understand the value of religion in society.  However, they were a distinct minority.  Of perhaps 50 responses, only 2 felt this way.

[Michael Lee]

i hope those two were kidding...

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I see what he's saying.  He's basically saying that since atheists don't have a written code of conduct, they're all just making up morality as they go along, and feels that this is an inferior state of affairs.

You are oversimplifying. It isn't a question of what athiests are doing. Its a question of what athiests are concieving of. Let me quote Richard Dawkins.

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.
- Richard Dawkins, Out of Eden, page 133.

Now with that in mind, in an athistic universe, no one can claim to be "right" or "wrong" and thus whatever we call "right" and "wrong" is only based on who had strongest force of arms, not on any objective reality. That in my view, is dangerous and not how we as humans act. We know that right and wrong are more than just trends.

We all know what happens when people follow the letter of the rules rather then the spirit of them.  You get kids expelled from school for having some aspirin in their backpack, because of the school's "zero tolerence" policy for drugs.  You get the man who shot his child's killer sentenced to life in prison because it was, technically, premeditated murder.

We don't work like that in Christianity. What you are refering to there is "legalism" which is something most Christians don't like at all.

http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/The%20dark%20side%20of%20...