What do Atheists Believe?

[Skyler]

If there's one thing I've heard about atheists, it's that they do not believe in the existence of a God.

So then, what do you believe?

It's been my experience that there is little or no value in engaging in a debate with someone who has no position on the subject. So, please, share your positions.

[byofrcs]

Turnabout: If you were not Christian, would you hurt someone for your own gain? If so, then I am more moral than you because I don't need a threat from a god creature to keep me in line. My morality is built-in. (There are many threads on the development of morality within human and other animal cultures and why it is crucial for survival.)

I have no doubt that you are more moral than I am, but you still have no basis for your morality. When the ship is sinking and there is only room for women and children in the lifeboat why stick to your built-in morality? You have a gun and they don't, so you can use it to make room in the lifeboat and enhance your survival.

An atheist, being a materialist would have made sure that there were enough lifeboats for everyone given there is a good amount of money to be made in providing safety equipment (using the threat of lawsuits to make sure the shipping companies comply).

On the other hand, if we look back at the last great drowning in the Bible, Noah, then there probably were huge numbers of people floating around the Ark saying, "Please save my child, Noah.". Noah, being blessed by god throws dung at them. (Which explains why Noah got rid of all that crap from the many 1,000s of kinds).

I think it's a bit rich for Christians to claim some moral superiority regarding drownings given the same book they derive their morals from details mass drownings of Biblical proportions that were sanctioned by their God.

Morality is the social compulsion to accept limited immediate personal gain in return for the opportunity to benefit from other's limited personal gain in the future.

That is a good definition, but it does not say I should be moral only that I am more likely to benefit from cooperation.

Now, there is this social contract. If you disobey the social contract (no stealing).. then society has given itself the right to punish you. Do you want to risk the consequences?

We all do take that risk on a daily basis. When we are late, we push the gas pedal a little harder, all the way up to murder if necessary, which is a very common occurrence these days.

The US is certainly an unusual country in that it has a high level of religiosity compared to other secular Western nations and yet has the worlds highest prison population (715 per 100,000 people or 2,019,234 prisoners). Superficially it would seem that this society with a high level of Christian religiosity shows that Christianity isn't a panacea to peace in society. I would say it shows an absurd level of incarceration that shows a systemic flaw in the US model of Christian morality.

Actually digging deeper into these figures and relating criminal behaviour to religiosity is a minefield of statistics so I don't want to go down that route other than to say that any US-based Christian will always be a hypocrite when they make any claims about "atheists" and morality in society.

So a little less tarring and feathering please olavisjo and a little more introspection at why the highly Christian religious US society is like it is and I don't think the answer is more of the same Christianity.

This is just it. For many (usually atheists), there is no moral absolute. There is no justifying a belief that something is 'right' objectively. We've decided amongst ourselves what is to be 'right' and 'wrong' based on what is convenient for us.

That is the honest answer, however I don't for a second think that you believe that.
If morality was simply what is convenient then you would never be able to call someone bad or evil, they are only inconvenient. I would not be evil if I kill and eat homeless people who would never be missed, you would not be evil if you kill and eat cows and pigs. You would not be evil if you fail to return a library book.
We all know that morality is real, we do not make it up, we discover it the same way we discover mathematical truths only easier. Even children figure it out. All you have to do is ask "how would you like it if someone did that to you?"

For example, it is usually considered 'wrong' to kill someone for the fun of it. But if someone has a ticking noise coming from under their padded jacket and is sauntering towards a crowded market, there might be a general consensus that killing him before he can press the button would be a 'good' thing to do.

You just killed the clock salesman, who was delivering an antique clock to his client at the market. But no loss, he was not well liked anyway.

If we go back a few years, say to Adam and Eve, we find that one little misunderstanding has lead to the death of every person who has ever lived on the planet.

[olavisjo]

I have no doubt that you are more moral than I am, but you still have no basis for your morality.

This makes no sense whatsoever. If I am moral, obviously I "have a basis for it" and as an Atheist you can be sure it was not the bible.

This is a concept that very few Atheist get (Fallibleone is the rare exception here).
So let me try and say it again, there are many good reasons why people are moral, but there is no reason why anyone should be moral.
In other words morality is an illusion, there is no such thing. It is like Santa Clause, it does not exist. An Atheist who still believes in morality is not a true Atheist.
And judging by the responses I have gotten to this post, I have to say that many of you are not true Atheists, as you still believe in invisible, non verifiable god like forces of morality.
So can any of you so called Atheist, tell me what your morality is based on other than your own personal preferences, or are you going to just bite the bullet and say that morality is just "what is convenient for us".

[JoeyKnothead]

This is a concept that very few Atheist get (Fallibleone is the rare exception here).
So let me try and say it again, there are many good reasons why people are moral, but there is no reason why anyone should be moral.
In other words morality is an illusion, there is no such thing. It is like Santa Clause, it does not exist. An Atheist who still believes in morality is not a true Atheist.
And judging by the responses I have gotten to this post, I have to say that many of you are not true Atheists, as you still believe in invisible, non verifiable god like forces of morality.
So can any of you so called Atheist, tell me what your morality is based on other than your own personal preferences, or are you going to just bite the bullet and say that morality is just "what is convenient for us".

Are we then incapable of love? You seem to equate concepts with a god, and you are wrong. Where there is understood to be this concept of morality, and using it to reference what is meant by morality, then the atheist is just as capable of moral understanding, and morality as any theist or deist or gnostic or any other human being on this planet.

Atheists can be understood to be amoral, but to call them immoral would be wrong. Where you, by your belief in your God, find your moral base, I by my belief in humanity, find mine. Where the foundation of morality is based on empathy, we find many atheists such as myself who base their morals on such. So, through my empathy, and because of it, I find my moral code. Where some theists may require that some invisible, undetactable spirit being to tell them how to act morally, atheists may find it in their love for fellow human beings.

This whole deal about atheists lacking morals, lacking a basis for their morals, and lacking a need for morals is a religious ruse. It is designed to impart an air of superiority in the believer. It is designed to convince the believer that those who do not worship as they do are at best amoral, and at worst Satan himself.

I find this line of reasoning highly inflammatory, and like many religious concepts totally lacking in proof, truth, and common damn decency.

Many religions have used these kinds of arguments for all manner of immoral, unconscionable acts, and dares to claim for itself sole possession of morality, and moral constructs. It is nothing more than the demonizing of anyone who disagrees. It is designed to sow confusion about, and outright hatred toward, non-believers.

Religion has got some mighty brass hairy pecans, after its long history of oppression and violence, to dare claim moral superiority. And for those who would spew this dogma, I say get clue. Quit forgetting your religion's many horrible, heinous, and atrocious acts, and admit that religion is just as guilty of a lack of morals, perhaps even more so, than any it would dare to accuse of lacking morals.

Let all who read this beware, give religion back one inch of the oppressive powers it had in the past, and it will not bat an eye as it plans further amoral, immoral, and downright murderous acts in trying to gain even more power. Religion is just one of many tools by which the oppressors will ply their trade, and if we dare lose vigil, it will revert to its evil, hateful, atrocious past. If we even think of sleeping while religion is allowed to gain its past glory, it will think nothing of slitting our throats in order to scare others into believing it.

Religion, when it uses this false argument, shows us that it does not care about anyone or anything but its own aims. Those aims have NEVER been proven to be anything other than man's own wish to rule other men. And by some of the most evil, putrid, disgusting ways that man has ever come up with, it dares to claim itself as the only basis for morals.

When you hear of others who spew this hateful claim that others have no morals, no basis for morals, or any less morals than any other group, know it is merely a tactic in man's wars against man.

Twice now, I've created threads to debate this very issue, and as yet none have entered to claim that only religion or god could be the basis for morals. Yet continuously in threads like these, we see the claims being made.

Where you see folks spout this kind of garbage, you can go to sleep assured they have no ability to understand human nature. They have no ability to think any way other than through their dogmatic, rooted in hatred, violent religious way. And if we allow this to stand, then we deserve the oppressions history shows religion so capable of dishing out.

I spit on this argument. I urinate on it. I defecate on it. To dare claim those that don't believe in the unprovable as somehow lacking, somehow inferior in morality, is lower than whale feces. And that's usually only found at the bottom of the ocean. The same damn ocean of evidence that shows religious history to be one of the most extreme, vile, and dangerous ideologies ever inflicted on humanity.

[McCulloch]

An Atheist who still believes in morality is not a true Atheist.
And judging by the responses I have gotten to this post, I have to say that many of you are not true Atheists, as you still believe in invisible, non verifiable god like forces of morality.
So can any of you so called Atheist, tell me what your morality is based on other than your own personal preferences, or are you going to just bite the bullet and say that morality is just "what is convenient for us".

If by us you mean our species, then right, morality is just what is best and most convenient for us. Without a human species, what you call morality becomes quite pointless, eh?
Humans are a social species. Certain collective values have become embedded in us through countless generations by evolution, by selective pressures.
Morality, like beauty, has no tangible existence outside of human experience. Both attributes are subjective yet can be studied objectively. For instance, we instinctively find certain characteristics beautiful (symmetry and other such characteristics seem to come into play). In a similar way, we instinctively find certain attitudes and actions immoral (fairness for example). Recognizing the reality of both beauty and morality does not require any kind of god-like being.

[Fallibleone]

This is just it. For many (usually atheists), there is no moral absolute. There is no justifying a belief that something is 'right' objectively. We've decided amongst ourselves what is to be 'right' and 'wrong' based on what is convenient for us.

That is the honest answer, however I don't for a second think that you believe that.

Tell me - why do you assume that I say things I don't mean? I found that comment to be more than a little condescending. It is exactly what I believe. Whether you believe me or not is not really important.

If morality was simply what is convenient then you would never be able to call someone bad or evil, they are only inconvenient.

That's right. I never do call someone 'evil' or bad. 'Evil' is a word laden with religious connotations, and is not something I believe in. 'Bad' is an oversimplification. I do not describe people in terms of 'good', 'bad' or 'evil'.

I would not be evil if I kill and eat homeless people who would never be missed, you would not be evil if you kill and eat cows and pigs. You would not be evil if you fail to return a library book.

You seem to be reasoning this out as if you think it is news to me. That's right. You have it right. Since I do not believe in 'evil', it being a religious term, I do not believe that if you kill and eat homeless people you are evil, or that if I eat cows and pigs I am evil or that if I fail to return a library book I am evil. I hope we have the hang of this now. Fallibleone says 'no evil'.

We all know that morality is real,

Correct.

we do not make it up, we discover it the same way we discover mathematical truths only easier.

Incorrect.

Even children figure it out. All you have to do is ask "how would you like it if someone did that to you?"

But this is exactly what I was saying. You've just backed up my argument for me. We decide what is 'right' or 'wrong' based on what is convenient for us. As you say, children quickly work out that if they do not like someone punching them in the face, someone else probably would not like to be punched in the face either. If the child was punched in the face it would hurt, and most people don't like pain and try to avoid it. Added to that, if we lived in a society in which we were all running around punching each other in the face, we'd have a serious problem with hospital overcrowding and general distrust. Therefore we have decided that it is 'wrong' to punch someone in the face.

For example, it is usually considered 'wrong' to kill someone for the fun of it. But if someone has a ticking noise coming from under their padded jacket and is sauntering towards a crowded market, there might be a general consensus that killing him before he can press the button would be a 'good' thing to do.

You just killed the clock salesman, who was delivering an antique clock to his client at the market. But no loss, he was not well liked anyway.

I guess subtleties don't work here. OK, I'll try again. Killing for fun is generally considered wrong, because we are mostly agreed that a society in which we all go about having a nice Saturday afternoon out by killing people is not a great idea. However, if a situation arises where it is better for the community at large if someone is taken out of the equation in order to save many others, suddenly killing can be argued to switch to 'right'. I was showing you an example of how morality is flexible and not objective or fixed as you say it is.

[Cmass]

I have no doubt that you are more moral than I am, but you still have no basis for your morality.

This makes no sense whatsoever. If I am moral, obviously I "have a basis for it" and as an Atheist you can be sure it was not the bible.

This is a concept that very few Atheist get (Fallibleone is the rare exception here).

This is a concept that very few Christians get.

So let me try and say it again, there are many good reasons why people are moral, but there is no reason why anyone should be moral.

So, let me try and say it again: There are many good reasons why people are moral, why they should be moral, and indeed why the have to be moral. Many of these reasons have been presented (at length) in recent posts and none require the presence of a god creature.

In other words morality is an illusion, there is no such thing. It is like Santa Clause, it does not exist. An Atheist who still believes in morality is not a true Atheist.

Morality is a concept just as math, love, and beauty. They exist within our minds. But, they are an important part of what makes human societies function properly.
Math provides a means to understand the world and solve problems, love provides a way to form lasting cooperative bonds and beauty, as with love allows us to associate good feelings with things we like. Morality is part of our social fabric. It is one of the vital concepts we invoke to remain a cooperative species. Without cooperation, we would quickly die out and without morality, there is little cooperation.
Again, no god creature required.

And judging by the responses I have gotten to this post, I have to say that many of you are not true Atheists, as you still believe in invisible, non verifiable god like forces of morality.

1) I see no evidence for a god and thus have no reason to believe in it's existence. By definition, that makes me a "true Atheist". Perhaps someday I'll be proven wrong and there really is a magical god creature, but as of now, I don't believe it exists.
2) Morality is a verifiable concept. It is not an invisible "force".

So can any of you so called Atheist, tell me what your morality is based on other than your own personal preferences, or are you going to just bite the bullet and say that morality is just "what is convenient for us".

You have already had this explained to you at length and in many ways. Please be respectful of the debate and review the past few pages of posts.

[olavisjo]

Are we then incapable of...
...dangerous ideologies inflicted on humanity.

Nice rant, but you did not understand a single word that I wrote.

If by us you mean our species, then right, morality is just what is best and most convenient for us.

So you would not have any problem with me strangling young beautiful blonds and dumping their bodies in the woods because that is what is best for me and I would not have any problem with you having me arrested and executed because that is what is best and most convenient for you.

This is just it. For many (usually atheists), there is no moral absolute. There is no justifying a belief that something is 'right' objectively. We've decided amongst ourselves what is to be 'right' and 'wrong' based on what is convenient for us.

That is the honest answer, however I don't for a second think that you believe that.

Tell me - why do you assume that I say things I don't mean? I found that comment to be more than a little condescending. It is exactly what I believe. Whether you believe me or not is not really important.

If you really believe what you said, why were you bothered when I belittled you? Could it be that I violated an absolute moral obligation to respect you? Where do you get the right to be offended by my comment?

I would not be evil if I kill and eat homeless people who would never be missed, you would not be evil if you kill and eat cows and pigs. You would not be evil if you fail to return a library book.

You seem to be reasoning this out as if you think it is news to me. That's right. You have it right. Since I do not believe in 'evil', it being a religious term, I do not believe that if you kill and eat homeless people you are evil, or that if I eat cows and pigs I am evil or that if I fail to return a library book I am evil. I hope we have the hang of this now. Fallibleone says 'no evil'.

Does Fallibleone say that murder and cannibalism are 'inconvenient' or does she have another word for it?

Even children figure it out. All you have to do is ask "how would you like it if someone did that to you?"

But this is exactly what I was saying. You've just backed up my argument for me. We decide what is 'right' or 'wrong' based on what is convenient for us. As you say, children quickly work out that if they do not like someone punching them in the face, someone else probably would not like to be punched in the face either. If the child was punched in the face it would hurt, and most people don't like pain and try to avoid it. Added to that, if we lived in a society in which we were all running around punching each other in the face, we'd have a serious problem with hospital overcrowding and general distrust. Therefore we have decided that it is 'wrong' to punch someone in the face.

Could the decision have been made in the other direction? Could we have decided that it is 'right' to punch someone in the face? That is why 'punching people in the face is wrong' is an absolute moral truth, there is only one outcome. (The sport of boxing and hockey being an exception)

For example, it is usually considered 'wrong' to kill someone for the fun of it. But if someone has a ticking noise coming from under their padded jacket and is sauntering towards a crowded market, there might be a general consensus that killing him before he can press the button would be a 'good' thing to do.

You just killed the clock salesman, who was delivering an antique clock to his client at the market. But no loss, he was not well liked anyway.

I guess subtleties don't work here. OK, I'll try again. Killing for fun is generally considered wrong, because we are mostly agreed that a society in which we all go about having a nice Saturday afternoon out by killing people is not a great idea. However, if a situation arises where it is better for the community at large if someone is taken out of the equation in order to save many others, suddenly killing can be argued to switch to 'right'. I was showing you an example of how morality is flexible and not objective or fixed as you say it is.

Yes we got the point, but we were just trying to get Fallibleone's goat.
It can be moral to kill, but it is never moral to murder.

There are many good reasons why people are moral, why they should be moral, and indeed why the have to be moral.

Name one reason that one should be moral.

[JoeyKnothead]

Since you would rather characterize my previous response as a rant, rather than debate it on its merits, let's break this down.

This is a concept that very few Atheist get (Fallibleone is the rare exception here).
So let me try and say it again, there are many good reasons why people are moral, but there is no reason why anyone should be moral.

The need to behave as responsible members of society should compel us all to adhere to some basic moralistic ideals. Ideals such as not harming each other, not stealing from each other, and not being fourth points of contact toward each other.

In other words morality is an illusion, there is no such thing. It is like Santa Clause, it does not exist. An Atheist who still believes in morality is not a true Atheist.

And no true hillbilly has all his teeth. What's your point here? Are you trying to tell me what I must believe as an atheist? As an atheist, the only thing I must 'believe' is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it.

And judging by the responses I have gotten to this post, I have to say that many of you are not true Atheists, as you still believe in invisible, non verifiable god like forces of morality.

Yep, I ain't a true hillbilly because I have all my teeth. You are not a true theist because you're incapable of understanding that others can hold a different belief than your own. You are not a true human because you hold a belief different than my understanding of your own belief. Are you getting how wrong this line of thinking is?

So can any of you so called Atheist, tell me what your morality is based on other than your own personal preferences, or are you going to just bite the bullet and say that morality is just "what is convenient for us".

So, can "any of you so called theists tell me what your morality is based on other than your own personal preferences, or are you theists going to just bite the bullet and say that morality is just 'what some thing for which there is no proof of has told me, though there's no proof he could have told me, but anyway, this thing has told me I must follow the moral concepts, some of which happen to coincide with the moral concepts of those who don't believe in this thing for which there is no proof has told me'."

I asked you before, and I will ask you again, please go to this thread and grab you a big bite...
Is Religion or God The Basis of Morals 2nd Edition?

Instead of rebutting the claims I stated in my 'rant', you seem to prefer to not argue them on their merits, but try to divert attention to your own position. This is exactly why I ranted as I did, because there are those who will make these kinds of claims and fail to back them up. Not only that, but there is the real, historical, proven possibility that religion could come to act in such anti-moral ways again.

[Cmass]

Cmass wrote:

There are many good reasons why people are moral, why they should be moral, and indeed why the have to be moral.

olivisjo

Name one reason that one should be moral.

Dear Jesus in heaven man! Read the previous dozen responses.

You should because of consequences if you don't. The consequences could include damage to your self esteem, feeling guilty or even jail time.

olivisjo wrote:

If you really believe what you said, why were you bothered when I belittled you? Could it be that I violated an absolute moral obligation to respect you? Where do you get the right to be offended by my comment?

The consequences of your belittling another person in here could range from your own embarrassment that it did nothing to advance your argument, to feeling bad that you purposely harmed another person and appear proud of it, to losing respect from forum members. If you escalated to the point of outright personal insults then it could potentially mean banishment from our little community.

It is easier to be moral if you have empathy for others. Empathy and other aspects of emotional intelligence are crucial survival skills for complex, cooperative human societies.
Do you have a strong sense of empathy for others?

[Cmass]

So you would not have any problem with me strangling young beautiful blonds and dumping their bodies in the woods because that is what is best for me and I would not have any problem with you having me arrested and executed because that is what is best and most convenient for you.

You seem to have a fascination with extremely grotesque, violent scenes. Dumping "young, beautiful blonds" ? This one appears to contain veiled (violent) sexual references as well. I assume that is the moral influence of the old testament god manifesting itself within you?

You are repeating yourself and completely ignoring other posts that have clearly addressed your argument.