Why don't Atheists run amok?

[Bram Kaandorp]

Ironically, Darwin's work was on the list of books banned by The Third Reich.

I didn't know that.

Thanks. Learn something every minute.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

One of the things that always amazes me is when a theist appeals to my sense of morality, why? If atheists hve no morality why appeal to it?

Because they think that atheists are god-hating, and thus still believe in god.

And if there's still a belief in god, morality can still be there, be it hidden.

Can anyone corroborate this?

 

[joobz]

LOL. Seeing where this was going, I knew it wouldn't be long until the "No True Scotsman" fallacy made a guest appearance!

One can't possibly tout moral superiority without a nice bowl of porridge.

 

[Sunstealer]

Atheists used to have to wear a collar which held a big wooden spike aimed at the base of their brain. If the atheist ran amok you could whack the spike with a large hammer thus killing the atheist stone dead.

Oh hold on, maybe that was elephants.

 

[PixyMisa]

Interesting how so many of you 'skeptics' are only too happy to take genocidal dictators at their word... when it suits your own belief system.

By their fruits you shall know them.
(Clue for the truly retarded: rather than believe everything a genocidal dictator says, simply look at their actions to discern their real worldview, motivations and inspiration)

Ah, so Stalin and Mao were also Christians then?

 

[ehcks]

Since atheists don't claim morality comes from anywhere but within, they choose to be good people for the sake of being a good person.

Theists claim their morality comes from their god. They choose to be good because being bad leads to immortal punishment.

So who has the moral high ground?

 

[joobz]

In a materialist world there is no justification whatsoever for having empathy for some being from whom you cannot materially benefit.

unfortunately, you have made some assumptions in your argument which are plainly wrong.
1.) having empathy most certainly results in material benefit.
2.) pure hedonism is not the end product of a materialistic view.

There are several "materialistic" explanations for empathy which do not require a god as an explanation.
1.) It is an evolutionary adaptation which ensures a functioning society.
2.) It is a rational argument. E.g., A society where others are treated as I would like to be treated results in a society which is most likely to benefit me.

Until you can demonstrate that there is a god, using god as an explanation for empathy and morals is simply fantasy. Once you can demonstrate there is a god, then you can start to make an argument* that god is the source of morality.

*Note that even if there is a god, there is no reason to assume it is the source of morality.

 

[SezMe]

...Even without gods you still have a moral obligation to your heard. In this case the rest of the human species. If you break these heard rules you are cast out of heard and most live in solitude (prison).

[Pedantry]heard -> herd[/Pedantry]

 

[PGH]

I heard a similar argument from a friend's father once. "I don't know why all you atheists just don't go around killing everyone." I was stunned at what a dumb statement this was and what it said about religious believers who think along those lines.

Why would I want to kill anyone? Much less groups of people. Sometimes people can be very hard to deal with, but never to the extent that I think I should freely take their lives. And there's the little matter of being a member of a society with laws and functioning prisons.

Most of all why does a religious believer think that if they found out their god did not exist they would want to go on a killing spree? Is their belief in god the only thing keeping them from being deplorable monsters? So long as there's the promise of eternal bliss they'll be good but take that away and it's Thunderdome??

I don't kill people because I have no desire to cause harm to someone else. I call it morality.

 

[RandFan]

Because they think that atheists are god-hating, and thus still believe in god.

And if there's still a belief in god, morality can still be there, be it hidden.

Can anyone corroborate this?

Thanks Bram. I've heard this kind of stuff before.

When my sister-in-law found out my wife was atheist she wrote her and told her than atheists are immoral. I've no doubt if called on it she would also move the goal posts in ad hoc fashion. One of the fun things about theism is that you can't be wrong. You just need to change the parameters of the game.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I heard a similar argument from a friend's father once. "I don't know why all you atheists just don't go around killing everyone." I was stunned at what a dumb statement this was and what it said about religious believers who think along those lines.

Why would I want to kill anyone? Much less groups of people. Sometimes people can be very hard to deal with, but never to the extent that I think I should freely take their lives. And there's the little matter of being a member of a society with laws and functioning prisons.

Most of all why does a religious believer think that if they found out their god did not exist they would want to go on a killing spree? Is their belief in god the only thing keeping them from being deplorable monsters? So long as there's the promise of eternal bliss they'll be good but take that away and it's Thunderdome??

I don't kill people because I have no desire to cause harm to someone else. I call it morality.

Although I haven't met anyone who actually said such a thing to me, I do wonder what goes on in their brain when they say it.

Do they genuinely think that humans have no innate sense of morality? Do they really think that a baby is born without any sense of what is pleasant or unpleasant?

I find it hard to believe that there are people who think that a baby, brought up without any religion, would always grow up to become an evil person.

Then again, there are stranger things out there.

 

[RandFan]

The key in your response is the word empathy. In a materialist world there is no justification whatsoever for having empathy for some being from whom you cannot materially benefit.

Not only can we justify it but we know it's material source, we can explain the mechanisms, we can predict how it will work for anyone including atheists and can verify that prediction.

There is empirical data that there exists mirror neurons that can fire when we see someone else experience something. So I feel good when others feel good, sadness when others are sad and discomfort when others are in pain.

These neurons are predicted by the theory of evolution. By evolving these neurons we are more likely to be altruistic and help others thus helping ourselves. So mirror neurons convey an advantage to social species that have them. Empathy fosters unity and cohesion.

 

[I Am The Scum]

In a materialist world there is no justification whatsoever for having empathy for some being from whom you cannot materially benefit.

Empathy is a feeling. It's basic. It doesn't require justification. If I stub my toe, then I don't have to justify the pain I feel. I just feel it.

Please think this through before you argue further. It's not as obvious as you think, Cap.

 

[porch]

. . . The rest, in practice, behave as if mankind was more than merely material. . .

No. I don't put a "merely" before material. It always seems a shame to me, when some theist, or spiritualist, or what-have-you, is insistent that people as they are are not good enough. That life, the world around us, the entire universe, is utter crap and there simply must be something else or something more. I don't have the despair, disgust or hatred that would require me to believe in some world beyond this world.

Not that my emotions would alter any evidence for the supernatural one way or the other.

 

[Dunstan]

I'm just too lazy. I prefer to walk amok.

 

[DC]

Interesting how so many of you 'skeptics' are only too happy to take genocidal dictators at their word... when it suits your own belief system.

By their fruits you shall know them.
(Clue for the truly retarded: rather than believe everything a genocidal dictator says, simply look at their actions to discern their real worldview, motivations and inspiration)

then suddenly the religious are gone

btw, the main Character in the Abrahamitic fairytales is also a genocidal dictator and his followers do not only take him at his word, no they actually worship that genocidal dictator.

 

[iknownothing]

I don't have any desire or motivation to run amok.

I do have a conscience and empathy. I try not to harm other people, and if I do I feel bad about it.

In a materialist world there is no justification whatsoever for having empathy for some being from whom you cannot materially benefit.

That's a curious lack of comprehension of what empathy actually means.

In a theistic world the possibilities for empathy are opened up because the identities of empathiser and 'empathee' are not necessarily restricted to their biological loci, immediate interests and the like.

I guess that depends on the beliefs of the particular religion and/or theist.

You can make a case for how often religion is used to take empathy out of the situation. It's a handy way to divide 'us' (deserving of empathy) from 'them' (not). Certainly, the Old Testament has many stories of people we are told not to feel empathy for -- the Egyptian firstborns, people who occupy land that you want, witches, etc.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Guys, we've gone over this a million times.

1. Hitler sinned.
2. Christians never sin.
C. Hitler wasn't a Christian.

That's logic, pinheads.

 

[I Ratant]

I'm a radical atheist and I run amok all the time.

I've torn apart and destroyed 17 deities/gods/demiurges to date and I've enjoyed doing so.

The only reason that I haven't been held accountable is that the beasties that I demolished are imaginary.

Have to go now - I've got Gaia on the rack...

.
Could you use a little less heat on the old broad? She passes it on!

 

[I Ratant]

Because morality has nothing to do with religion.

.
Because morality has nothing to do with religion.