Atheism: walk the talk?

[narcan]

Atheists of the West are mostly living under governments whose laws have largely been based on Christian principles. And the moral code of the West is generally founded on the principles that Jesus taught: love others, don't kill or steal, etc.
But surely a belief in the theory of evolution leaves an atheist with no option but to follow the principles of evolution: survival of the fittest, 'removal' of the weak, etc. So why do atheists not champion the routine termination of all substandard foetuses? Why do they not promote the sterilization of the congenitally physically and mentally disabled? Why are atheists not trying to spread their seed as widely as possible? Surely marriage or monogamy is the antithesis of 'evolution'-founded atheism?
For atheists to believe that we should follow the Marxist / Freudian belief that God is our own creation, and that freedom from this illusion will liberate us into 'superbeings' is surely denying the facts? The only states that have truly embodied the logical extension of evolutionary theory have culminated in genocide on a incredible scale. Nazi Germany and communist Russia embodied the fundamental principles of atheism: life being ultimately valueless and therefore expendible; the survival of the fittest being the supreme mandate for the prosperity of the human race; the killing of the weak - the obstacles to these goals - being the responsibility of the state for the development of the human race.

I would argue that western atheists who profess to live according to their atheist beliefs are unlikely to be doing so. One of the few atheists that I can see who lived according to a truly 'evolution'-based atheistic doctrine was Hitler. He defiantly stated that he had "freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality" (ie: the Christian principles that are the foundation of our law and morality in the West.

My question is this: what does authentic atheism look like? What does a true and honest atheist look like when they're 'walking the talk'? I see a lot of nominal atheism. It's easy to profess beliefs. But what does it look like when you actually live out atheism in every day life? Bertrand Russell had a few failed marriages and finally found love in his fourth. Is that the espousal of atheistic living? It simply doesn't seem to fit with the principles that atheism is based on. So what should it look like?

(I am not interested in attacks on my style of writing, or deep philosophical arguments about the minutae of things I have said. I am looking for an honest and genuine response to my question. I am happy to be proved wrong! But I get very cheesed off at naff arguments that avoid the question. I apologise in advance for the obvious connection I have made between atheism and Hitler / Stalin. I would truly like to be shown that this link does not exist, but at present I am unable to see how. I look forward to the debate. Thanks for your contributions. T)

[Bugmaster]

Hoo boy, where to begin...

Atheists of the West are mostly living under governments whose laws have largely been based on Christian principles.

I prefer to think of it as follows:

Some of the Christian moral tenets are based on common-sense morality that ensures survival of human societies, just as modern Western laws do. Other Christian moral tenets have as their sole purpose the subjugation of non-Christians, and, as such, are incompatible with a free society.

The moral principles that are beneficial to the survival of human societies include "no killing", "no stealing" and "no false witness-bearing". The moral principles that are incompatible with a free society are "thou shalt have no gods before me", "no graven images" and "disobedient children should be stoned to death". There are others, these are just examples.

And the moral code of the West is generally founded on the principles that Jesus taught: love others, don't kill or steal, etc.

Jesus taught some of these principles, but it does not follow that modern governments are founded on Jesus's teachings, specifically.

But surely a belief in the theory of evolution leaves an atheist with no option but to follow the principles of evolution: survival of the fittest, 'removal' of the weak, etc.

Darwinian evolution deals strictly with speciation in biology; it makes no moral claims and is not applicable to social situations at all. You might as well say, "the law of gravity teaches us to beat people down so that they'd fall, as all objects do".

For atheists to believe that we should follow the Marxist / Freudian belief that God is our own creation, and that freedom from this illusion will liberate us into 'superbeings' is surely denying the facts?

Not all atheists are Marxists, and virtually no one is a Freudian nowadays. I'm neither Marxist nor a Freudian, for example.

One of the few atheists that I can see who lived according to a truly 'evolution'-based atheistic doctrine was Hitler.

Godwin's Law strikes again. Nonetheless, I should point out that Hitler professed to be a Christian.

My question is this: what does authentic atheism look like? What does a true and honest atheist look like when they're 'walking the talk'?

They look just like you, only with less church, more freedom of thought.

Let me attempt to concisely summarize all the mistaken statements in your post:

* Atheists must believe in Dawinian Evolution. Most atheists do indeed subscribe to Darwinian Evolution, Newtonian Mechanics, and other scientific principles. However, there's nothing inherent in atheism that requires them to do so. Atheism is merely the belief that any kind of god most probably does not exist -- no more, no less.

* Dawinian Evolution inevitably entails certain moral choices, and these choices are eeeevil. In fact, evolution deals strictly with the mechanism by which species change over time. It has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with biology.

* Atheism causes dictatorship. What about all the Ayatollahs that are sending people to attack us as we speak ? What about Hitler himself, who was a Christian ? And what about ye olde Spanish Inquisition ? I'd argue that dictatorship is caused by power-hungry, paranoid leaders, regardless of their religious denomination.

* Atheism and Marxism are equivalent. Marx was an atheist, but this does not automatically mean that all atheists are Marxists. Mark Twain was not a Marxist by any means, just to name one.

* Jesus taught that killing is wrong, therefore any law that prohibits killing is based on Jesus's teachings. Same logical fallacy as above.

[bernee51]

what does authentic atheism look like? What does a true and honest atheist look like when they're 'walking the talk'?

This is too easy. An 'authentic' atheist posseses but one characteristic...he/she does not have a god belief.

... I apologise in advance for the obvious connection II have made between atheism and Hitler....

Pity the link you make is incorrect.

BTW Hitler was a christian, nazi Germany was a christian country.

[McCulloch]

My question is this: what does authentic atheism look like? What does a true and honest atheist look like when they're 'walking the talk'? I see a lot of nominal atheism. It's easy to profess beliefs. But what does it look like when you actually live out atheism in every day life? Bertrand Russell had a few failed marriages and finally found love in his fourth. Is that the espousal of atheistic living? It simply doesn't seem to fit with the principles that atheism is based on. So what should it look like?

Welcome narcan . This is a good question.

Firstly, I would have to challenge one of your assumptions. Each different theistic religion comes with a bunch of stories, pronouncements and characteristics attributed to their god(s). These define what the authentic religion looks like. Atheism is the state of not believing in any deity. Therefore we do not have any bundle of characteristics which define authentic atheism other than the obvious disbelief in the supernatural. What are these principles that atheism is based on that you refer to?

Humanism (aka Secular Humanism) is one attempt to build an ethical framework without recourse to the supernatural. The British Humanist Association is a good resource for information on Humanist ideals and ethics. Bertrand Russell, the British Lord, did not measure up to these ideals any more than GW Bush, the President of the USA, measures up to the ideals of his professed Christianity. Not all atheists subscribe to the Humanist point of view.

[QED]

Welcome to the DC&R forums narcan, nice to see another Brit join in with the festivities!

Atheists of the West are mostly living under governments whose laws have largely been based on Christian principles. And the moral code of the West is generally founded on the principles that Jesus taught: love others, don't kill or steal, etc.

I would take issue with your assessment. The rule of law is similar from one western country to another in so much as protecting life and property is concerned, but these codes easily predate Christianity. This is a tried and tested formula for stable society and can be demonstrated to work in "game theory" so given the objective of stability, any society would do well to adopt such "morals"

But surely a belief in the theory of evolution leaves an atheist with no option but to follow the principles of evolution: survival of the fittest, 'removal' of the weak, etc. So why do atheists not champion the routine termination of all substandard foetuses? Why do they not promote the sterilization of the congenitally physically and mentally disabled? Why are atheists not trying to spread their seed as widely as possible? Surely marriage or monogamy is the antithesis of 'evolution'-founded atheism?

Whoa! Evolution is understood as the mechanism by which life has, er, evolved. It is a principle that can be used in engineering to develop autonomous "design". But why would one expect the process which leads to ones existence to colour ones attitude towards potential human applications of the process? I look upon all emergent life as deserving a big round of applause just for making it thus far. Appreciating the struggle that every living thing undergoes is all I need to respect life in all its various forms. Having said that I also appreciate minerals for their long journey through nucleosynthesis in the heart of stars that gave themselves up so the cosmos could be seeded more exotic atoms than dull old hydrogen.

For atheists to believe that we should follow the Marxist / Freudian belief that God is our own creation, and that freedom from this illusion will liberate us into 'superbeings' is surely denying the facts?

I honestly didn't know until I just read that, that Marx and Freud thought those things. I've had my head buried in science for 50 years so I tend to miss philosophical stuff. Does this mean I follow them Certainly I think we could do without all the arbitrary division that competing religions bring upon us. I'm sick to death of seeing conflict between secular factions. As for "superbeings" it's a bit of a meaningless phrase is it not? Humans are always busy developing technologies to transform our existence from the way it was in the past, but that's all it amounts to.

The only states that have truly embodied the logical extension of evolutionary theory have culminated in genocide on a incredible scale. Nazi Germany and communist Russia embodied the fundamental principles of atheism: life being ultimately valueless and therefore expendible; the survival of the fittest being the supreme mandate for the prosperity of the human race; the killing of the weak - the obstacles to these goals - being the responsibility of the state for the development of the human race.

Yes I've heard people say this, but I've asked before: isn't it more a feature of totalitarian rule where accountability goes out of the window and the state becomes an amplified version of it's leaders personal psychosis? Hitler asked "Who says I am not under the special protection of God?" and had many good words to say for Christianity. But like Stalin, he had before him a system through which his warped personality was able to reach out and do great harm without the checks and balances that exist in democratic states. Again, the trivial principle of "survival of the survivors" which accounts for all that which we see surviving in the world is a "take it or leave it" for anyone wishing to rule over others. Attempts to tarnish evolution by association with Hitler or whatever are just as daft as attempting to tarnish Golf if that were his favorite sport.

I would argue that western atheists who profess to live according to their atheist beliefs are unlikely to be doing so.

I'm pretty sure that I live according to my beliefs - I believe the universe and everything in it has evolved from something eternal and primitive (energy?). I believe the way things are could be very different and are certainly not the choice of some superior intellect (else how come things are constantly in flux and frequently messed-up?). That makes me appreciative of all the things that have come together to support my existence and value the fact that I have gained enough consciousness to see the universe and to make a start in understanding it.

One of the few atheists that I can see who lived according to a truly 'evolution'-based atheistic doctrine was Hitler. He defiantly stated that he had "freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality" (ie: the Christian principles that are the foundation of our law and morality in the West.

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922

I somehow find it hard to see him as a paid-up member of the Atheists society. I think it reinforces my notion that any leader who becomes corrupt with power and is not held accountable can hold any belief and still be a mass murderer. I don't think Saddam Hussein or the Taliban leaders would be any different despite their ultra-devotion to God.

My question is this: what does authentic atheism look like? What does a true and honest atheist look like when they're 'walking the talk'? I see a lot of nominal atheism. It's easy to profess beliefs. But what does it look like when you actually live out atheism in every day life? Bertrand Russell had a few failed marriages and finally found love in his fourth. Is that the espousal of atheistic living? It simply doesn't seem to fit with the principles that atheism is based on. So what should it look like?

It should look like people going about their business without resorting to asking why God did this or God did that, and realizing that we all have to take full responsibility for our actions, and to do our best not to do anything to others that we would not have them do to us. This is in recognition that there are no guardian angels, and that anyone we see suffering might just as easily be us in need of help.

I think you make the mistake of assuming evolution to being some sort of arbitrary world-view or outlook when, in fact, it is an impassionate study of a real-world mechanism. If it were not, we would not be able to adapt it for our own practical engineering purposes. Where it becomes a philosophy is when seen running counter to the religious worldview (which is, in my view, an unnecessary step as God would have done well to have "invented" it and very little modification of the scriptures might be required to accommodate this). I feel quite sure that the typical Atheist only refers to evolution when considering the complexity of the world they find themselves in.

[Dilettante]

My question is this: what does authentic atheism look like?

So in case we didn't have enough with the "True Christian" label, we now have a "True atheist" label? I just don't understand your question.
There are conservative atheists and liberal ones (in the American sense of the word), there are right wing atheists and left wing atheists, there are irreligious atheists and religious ones (some Buddhists for example), there just are no "authentic atheists" as opposed to "pretend atheists" because atheists share very little apart from the theological position of non-belief in deities. And everyone is an atheist with respect to those gods he or she doesn't believe in.

[ENIGMA]

The others who have posted have covered this topic fairly well, but I think I should add a few points:

Atheists of the West are mostly living under governments whose laws have largely been based on Christian principles.

Hardly. Democratic governance is not a Christian principle, freedom of speech is not a Christian principle, innocent until proven guilty is not a Christian principle, and the list goes on.

And the moral code of the West is generally founded on the principles that Jesus taught: love others, don't kill or steal, etc.

You mean the same moral principles that were often present is societies for thousands of years before your god-man showed up on the scene?

But surely a belief in the theory of evolution leaves an atheist with no option but to follow the principles of evolution: survival of the fittest, 'removal' of the weak, etc.

Under this line of reasoning, surely you would have no moral objection to being shoved off a cliff in order to follow the principles of gravity.

The only states that have truly embodied the logical extension of evolutionary theory have culminated in genocide on a incredible scale. Nazi Germany and communist Russia embodied the fundamental principles of atheism: life being ultimately valueless and therefore expendible; the survival of the fittest being the supreme mandate for the prosperity of the human race; the killing of the weak - the obstacles to these goals - being the responsibility of the state for the development of the human race.

Both examples utterly and completely wrong for different reasons.

Nazi Germany: Hitler was a Christian who was democratically elected into office by Christians, and whose power stemed from the amorality of Christians who wore Nazi belt buckles saying "God was with us" and had an interesting tendency of saying that they were "just following orders" in the investigations afterwards. Who could blame them? What is biblical morality, ultimately, other than following orders.

Communist Russia: Stalin was an atheist, granted, but he perpetuated a state dogma which effectively served the purposes and functions of religion. You blame him for following evolutionary principles (presumably Darwinian evolutionary principles), when he effectively banned scientists from conducting research based on Darwinian evolutionary principles?

Why would he do such a thing, you ask?

Because such notions of evolution are too "capitalistic" and flew in the face of their communist dogma. They ultimately made Lamarkian evolution the "basis" for research, ultimately leading to the effective non-existance of soviet biological research programs. The main moral that you can draw from Stalin is that one need not be religious to pursue false dogma's to the detriment of society, but it certainly does help.

My question is this: what does authentic atheism look like? What does a true and honest atheist look like when they're 'walking the talk'? I see a lot of nominal atheism. It's easy to profess beliefs. But what does it look like when you actually live out atheism in every day life? Bertrand Russell had a few failed marriages and finally found love in his fourth. Is that the espousal of atheistic living? It simply doesn't seem to fit with the principles that atheism is based on. So what should it look like?

If one does not believe in God, one is an atheist. End of story.

There are a number of moral principles that are consistant with atheism, such as Utilitarianism, Humanism, etc., however the moral principles are not necessarily implied by atheism and often atheism is not necessarily implied by the given moral principles.

I am looking for an honest and genuine response to my question. I am happy to be proved wrong!

I doubt that, but I could be wrong. We shall see.

[A 3rd Gentleman]

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

The Code of Hammurabi, written approximately 1700 B.C. encompasses all basic principles that both western government and more significantly, Christianity, is founded upon. So, apparently you are a christian living by Hammurabian principles.

[narcan]

Thanks for all your responses. Some really interesting stuff, and much of it very graciously stated! I am clearly proved wrong about Hitler's professed beliefs! I am hoping that his proclamation of faith can be overlooked, as his actions were rather contrary to teachings of scripture! But QED's quote of Hitlers' Christian rhetoric was an amusingly strong rebuke to my point!! I concede
My question needs some (hefty!) refining. I think that McCulloch caught my thread, that perhaps I'm looking more at the humanist approach - where morality is derived from what we know, see and experience. Essentially an absolutist approach to truth (or whatever we call it). Ie: that if there is a correct or best way of 'seeing' and 'doing' life, then what does that look like.
(I feel a bit embarrassed about the crude arguments in my original question. Please forgive me! I'm new to this thing. But happy to learn from your excellent arguing skills!)

Regards, Narcan

[QED]

Thanks for all your responses. Some really interesting stuff, and much of it very graciously stated

I hope you continue to enjoy the civility you've found here. Our differences of opinion must not be allowed to prevent us discussing them in a civilized fashion.

My question needs some (hefty!) refining. I think that McCulloch caught my thread, that perhaps I'm looking more at the humanist approach - where morality is derived from what we know, see and experience. Essentially an absolutist approach to truth (or whatever we call it). Ie: that if there is a correct or best way of 'seeing' and 'doing' life, then what does that look like.

I mentioned game theory; a branch of mathematics which has the capacity to model and analyse different strategies of interaction between "social elements". From this certain morals that have already been found empirically can be proven to provide the optimum strategies for mutual coexistence. I see no way of knowing if such strategies have been passed down through divine revelation or by simple trial and error. Either way the strategies mostly smack of common sense to me.

I think I know what you're getting at; when attacking Atheism there quite often seems to be a tendency to focus on lack of "purpose" or "meaning" suggesting that a world without God must be some sort of nihilistic wasteland. This is something I quite simply fail to grasp, but it sets up a false dilemma in which the Atheist is then expected to defend his doom-laden existence. If we study the evolution of the cosmos we find constant change, an endless unfolding of greater complexity. Fundamentalists who reject the scientifically agreed chronology tend to deny this flux preferring to accept the biblical account of God's initial fiat as a "one-off event" in which everything is laid down for once and for all. In such a static world divine purpose and meaning might be attractive -- if not essential to sustain an interest in life, but in the dynamic universe there is an aspect of participation that I find more than enough to get me out of bed in the mornings!