But that is the answer to people who think that “without GOD”, you cannot be moral.
Of course you can.
And as we see in the world, claiming to follow God’s Word doesn’t make you moral.
There’s different types of nihilism and existentialism. Absurdism is an interesting one.
Spiritual but not religious, or system-free monism. It’s a rejection of old intolerant dogmas without destroying meaning and wonder, as in materialism or consumerism.
Even if a god existed, his views would be another subjective opinion. However, moral realism is the dominant stance of modern philosophy, but it’s based on arguments more sophisticated than divine command theory.
The closest reaction to the OP I’ve gotten to revealing my lack of belief is, “You can’t really be an atheist, you’re such a nice person.” We didn’t discuss much further, so I’m not sure if they just thought I was confused or if I was “one of the good ones.”
I’ve been told, essentially, “You can’t be an atheist, because you know more than I do about religion”. A truly bulletproof argument: “My ignorance defeats your knowledge”.
Sounds to me like your friend was being a little facetious, but I wasn’t there.
I may not believe there’s an afterlife, but that doesn’t mean I think I have carte blanche to act any way I want to. There’s still repercussions in this life, and I’m not going to jeopardize my short time on Earth.
Well, that’s silly! :smack: A better knowledge of religion in a general sense simply means that you can approach such belief systems in an objective fashion, without feeling the need to become a “true believer” in any particular faith. Evidently, your friend was incapable of seeing that.
And that’s one of the misconceptions, that believers do the right thing out of fear.
If a believer asserts that atheists can’t be trusted because there’s nothing stopping us from raping, stealing and murdering, it’s not a misconception about *that *believer.
No argument here.
I admit to having one fear of atheists. In most respects I see atheists like anyone else. I feel they have as much empathy as anyone else and care about the future of earth long after they are gone. The one lingering fear I have is that if one individual had the power and support behind him he could make decisions that believers would normally leave up to God.
If I were an atheist I would see no reason not to make hard decisions for what I considered the betterment of mankind, helping to assure his long term survival. This could get very ugly. If limited resources or outside pressure became great enough I can see this going down.
I don’t understand this. Is there not a history of humans making such hard decisions regardless of whether they are religious or not?
In fact, is not much of religion’s power derived from the priesthood (or equivalent) making pronouncements based upon what they think their gods want people to do?
Thats very true, it is the most widely accepted concept of what we think god wants us to do that I see as stablizing.
Religion as a stabilising influence? That is an interesting interpretation to say the least.
I think you’ll find that god is more than a little confused and capricious regarding what the right thing to do is. Among the most widely followed writings there seems to be a lack of consensus.
Let’s imagine I, as a random atheist, am to be given power tomorrow to make binding laws as I see fit in my country. Then let’s imagine that someone who is very religious (any random religion will do) is also given the task of setting binding laws in their own country.
Without knowing the laws or religion beforehand, which regime would you choose to live under?
I would like to think that in both cases the individual would be able to put personal beliefs aside recognizing the constitution. Religions scare me with too much power as they can become fanatical. Presently I have no opinion on how atheists in general feel about believers. Most that I know are very tolerant as long as there religion doesn’t hamper their own lifestyle. I do have a lingering fear that if atheists gain too much power they would have more of a tendency to stretch their power into areas religions have not tread.
It’s really not difficult at all. If I care (while living) about the well-being of people who are dear to me, why would I not take simple steps aimed at a continuing well-being for them after my death?
My thought was that there is no constitution other than that created by these two characters…the thought of a religious constitution is not a happy one.
That is pretty much the stated aim of many of the worlds religions. Telling people what to think and what to do in accordance with the law from a supernatural, all-powerful being. You are right to be scared.
This one thinks you are deluded and wrong but that just marks you out as a member of the human race.
Ultimately, as long as your beliefs and practices cause no harm to others, do what you like.
Wasn’t it Thomas Jefferson who said “it neither picks my pocket not breaks my let” and he was something of light-touch deist and not religious.
I’d humbly suggest that the above thoughts are echoed by the vast majority of those of us who aren’t religious.
Exactly. that is my experience too.
I would suggest this is far less likely for someone who isn’t religious. And in any case, which areas are you thinking of? which areas do religions not tread into? They are certainly concerned with sex, relationships, marriage, death, punishment, words, images, art, thoughts and deeds. What else is left that religion steers clear of?
There is indeed such a history, and I think that a lot of believers don’t see clearly on this because there has long been a history of atheists in the public eye keeping their beliefs to themselves because of antipathy towards atheists.
When someone tells me they’d never vote for an atheist for public office, I assure them that they already have. The difference is, unlike me, the atheists they’ve voted for are also liars.
If it matters to you that it’s widely accepted, you’re considering earthly evidence. Just like atheists have to do.
Believers are always so confident that the religion they want injected into public life will be their particular religion. Latter Day Saints believe that God forbids drinking alcohol. So do most Muslims and Baptists. Roman Catholics believe it’s a sacred ritual. Most other religions believe something in between. If everyone agreed on what God thinks, we wouldn’t need the establishment clause.
There’s a quote of a non-believer telling a believer: “You and I aren’t all that different - I just believe in one fewer god than you do. And when you understand why you don’t believe in all the others, you’ll understand why I don’t believe in yours”.
I have to admit, it’s tough to argue with a guy who’s got a university named after him. :rolleyes:
Who are the atheists who lied their way into public office, and what is your evidence that they lied?
Regards,
Shodan
Think of F. U. Shakespeare’s argument as an existence proof as opposed to a constructive proof. (Though he didn’t actually give a proof. Without specific examples, we can only say that it’s highly probable that someone, somewhere has lied about their religious beliefs to help them get elected.)
How can it be an existence proof if he didn’t given a proof? And if there is no proof and no examples, how can it be determined that it is highly likely? F. U. Shakespeare asserted that anyone who said they would not vote for an atheist, has voted for an atheist who was lying. That is neither an example nor a proof - it’s mere assertion.
I assume I am not meant to take it on faith. 
Regards,
Shodan