I have decided to become an atheist (hypothetical)

[mswas]

As such, since God does not exist, I feel it is time to take stock of everything I ever thought I knew. The obvious place to start is:

Morality.

Well, atheists keep telling me that an atheist can be moral. But what is moral? Morality seems to me like a system designed to keep the proles in line. From what I can tell those who are in power are either in power based upon some social authority conferred upon them to be the custodians of some ancient structure based on a higher power, like the Pope or the President or a King. The Pope is supposed to be Christ’s vicar on Earth. George Washington swore his oath of office on the bible like a Freemason, and a King is supposed to be appointed by God. Since God is a bunch of BS, why should I bother with these arcane authority systems?

As an atheist I should be completely sovereign. There is no God, no higher power to answer to, all I need to do is stay on the right side of the herd mentality. Personal responsibility is merely a matter of understanding cause and effect. As long as I do not stand in the way of reactions that I trigger, I am being responsible. I will not have to face negative consequences. So the only real responsibility I have is to be very very smart. Any negative consequences I face will be in direct proportion to my inability to foresee the effect that I caused. If I get nailed by the effect of someone else or something else, so be it, that’s a force of nature.

Now, Love, this seems to be another piece of cockamamie BS. I see no evidence that any such thing exists. Besides, I’ve never really met anyone who could define it properly either. So what’s the point of this one? If like God, someone proves to me it exists, I’ll believe in it then. Otherwise it seems like two people just finding each other and mutually deciding that they are willing to cling to one another in the dark. Any positive benefit comes merely from sexual or security benefit. Merely endorphins.

The state. Well this is a bit trickier. Now, it’s a higher power of sorts, but it seems rather abstract. It’s a grand corporation of individuals who work toward a common purpose. Ok, so what do I owe this corporation? Well, I never signed any contract with it. So ultimately I owe it nothing. Those that get to the highest levels of power seem to understand that. The best course of action is to merely game the mechanisms within the state in order to use them to my benefit.

So now, with my newfound discovery, I feel no obligation to anyone or anything. All of the social institutions in my life were based off of some sort of pseudo-religious basis. A bunch of deluded fools clinging to one another because they cannot handle dying. Everyone really only out for themselves but willing to go through the motions of caring about one another in order to best facilitate getting what they want. At this point in history it seems like the mechanisms are in place for us to operate at a more enlightened and honest level, total atomization, where we all recognize that we are individuals with no obligations whatsoever.

I recognize that some might consider this sociopathic, and certainly it probably is by the strict definition, but I don’t really buy into the religion of psychology anymore either, more state sponsored control mechanisms. Sure I understand that there is a science underlying it, and power over others can be derived from it, but the notion of ‘mental illness’ is just a method of keeping the weak in line.

So, without resorting to any sort of emotional appeal whatsoever. Explain to me why I have any obligation not to rob, cheat, defraud, rape or murder you if I can get away with it. I’m willing to entertain these notions, if you make a good argument I will assimilate it into my new personal ethic as an atheist. Of course I realize that by having no obligation to you, you have no obligation to me either. I do not expect my behavior in any way to reflect on other atheists, but if it does, I do not really care, misplaced blame is always to my advantage. If being an atheist becomes politically unpopular at some point, I’ll just lie and pretend that my atheism was a phase.

[Justin_Bailey]

You know how religious people always bitch that atheists blame any and all bad things in the world on religion? You’re being that same jerk about the way atheists must view the world.

Good luck, but I fear this will not end well for you. And I say that as a theist who has never wavered in his belief for one day.

[Captain_Carrot]

@mswas

Well, atheists keep telling me that an atheist can be moral. But what is moral? Morality seems to me like a system designed to keep the proles in line. From what I can tell those who are in power are either in power based upon some social authority conferred upon them to be the custodians of some ancient structure based on a higher power, like the Pope or the President or a King. The Pope is supposed to be Christ’s vicar on Earth. George Washington swore his oath of office on the bible like a Freemason, and a King is supposed to be appointed by God. Since God is a bunch of BS, why should I bother with these arcane authority systems?

Obeying the government is a matter of prudence, not holiness.

As an atheist I should be completely sovereign. There is no God, no higher power to answer to, all I need to do is stay on the right side of the herd mentality. Personal responsibility is merely a matter of understanding cause and effect. As long as I do not stand in the way of reactions that I trigger, I am being responsible. I will not have to face negative consequences. So the only real responsibility I have is to be very very smart. Any negative consequences I face will be in direct proportion to my inability to foresee the effect that I caused. If I get nailed by the effect of someone else or something else, so be it, that’s a force of nature.

Y’know, I think it’s a lot easier to do what is ethical than to do whatever you want and then scramble to avoid the consequences.

Now, Love, this seems to be another piece of cockamamie BS. I see no evidence that any such thing exists. Besides, I’ve never really met anyone who could define it properly either. So what’s the point of this one? If like God, someone proves to me it exists, I’ll believe in it then. Otherwise it seems like two people just finding each other and mutually deciding that they are willing to cling to one another in the dark. Any positive benefit comes merely from sexual or security benefit. Merely endorphins.

Nothin’ ‘merely’ about it. Just a chemical reaction? Maybe, but so’s fire. So are the innards of a computer. So’s digestion. Some things are important beyond our ability to understand or explain them.

The state. Well this is a bit trickier. Now, it’s a higher power of sorts, but it seems rather abstract. It’s a grand corporation of individuals who work toward a common purpose. Ok, so what do I owe this corporation? Well, I never signed any contract with it. So ultimately I owe it nothing. Those that get to the highest levels of power seem to understand that. The best course of action is to merely game the mechanisms within the state in order to use them to my benefit.

Or, you could maybe not devote your life to being an asshole. Seriously, are you so confused by the idea that people can be nice without some divine impetus or threat?

[mswas]

@Justin_Bailey

You know how religious people always bitch that atheists blame any and all bad things in the world on religion? You’re being that same jerk about the way atheists must view the world.

Good luck, but I fear this will not end well for you. And I say that as a theist who has never wavered in his belief for one day.

Nope. I am not talking about other atheists, only about the way I see it. I don’t think it’s impossible for an atheist to cling to such arcane notions of social control. If it makes them happy, they should go for it. I simply don’t see why it’s anything other than a mere choice. I do not see any rational reason to believe in such things as morality or love.

[mswas]

@Captain Carrot

Obeying the government is a matter of prudence, not holiness.

Unless one sees an opening. Then prudence is a matter of dotting your i’s and crossing your t’s.

Y’know, I think it’s a lot easier to do what is ethical than to do whatever you want and then scramble to avoid the consequences.

How do I know what’s ethical? Should I merely mimick social norms to fit in? Should I read the great philosophers and tally up statistical averages for how they believe one should behave in a given situation?

Nothin’ ‘merely’ about it. Just a chemical reaction? Maybe, but so’s fire. So are the innards of a computer. So’s digestion. Some things are important beyond our ability to understand or explain them.

Right, but the transcendent mystique that so many apply to it doesn’t seem to mean anything really. Why do people base their whole lives off of it? Generally the endorphins seem to wear off and people end up stuck in these intractable contractual obligations due to decisions they made while under the influence of sexual hormones. Is that prudent in any way?

Or, you could maybe not devote your life to being an asshole. Seriously, are you so confused by the idea that people can be nice without some divine impetus or threat?

I could be nice, or not of course, depending upon the necessity at the time. I can understand how being nice to people is useful in achieving one’s objectives.

[Czarcasm]

@mswas

Nope. I am not talking about other atheists, only about the way I see it. I don’t think it’s impossible for an atheist to cling to such arcane notions of social control. If it makes them happy, they should go for it. I simply don’t see why it’s anything other than a mere choice. I do not see any rational reason to believe in such things as morality or love.

Then you had best keep your religious crutch, for it seems that you have neither the self-discipline, nor the empathy, that it would take to handle atheism.

[Czarcasm]

I think the conceit starts with the very first sentence of the OP: "I have decided to become an atheist "
Is that how you think it happens? Atheism isn’t a decision that is made, it’s a position that is forced upon you. When you are not given a valid reason to believe, any position except atheism is self-deception, pure and simple. You believe, or you don’t.

[Bosstone]

@Czarcasm

Then you had best keep your religious crutch, for it seems that you have neither the self-discipline, nor the empathy, that it would take to handle atheism.

Quite. I always have to wonder about those who insist you can’t be a decent human being without religion. What, exactly, are they not doing only through fear of God?

When the serial murderers stop saying “God made me do it!” and begin saying “There was no God to keep me from doing it!” then I might lend a little credence to this view.

[Miller]

You want a baling machine to go with all that straw in the OP?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@mswas

Well, atheists keep telling me that an atheist can be moral. But what is moral? Morality seems to me like a system designed to keep the proles in line. From what I can tell those who are in power are either in power based upon some social authority conferred upon them to be the custodians of some ancient structure based on a higher power, like the Pope or the President or a King. The Pope is supposed to be Christ’s vicar on Earth. George Washington swore his oath of office on the bible like a Freemason, and a King is supposed to be appointed by God. Since God is a bunch of BS, why should I bother with these arcane authority systems?

Because generally it’s a good idea to have a governmental system that a considerable amount of people are willing to submit to? And, if there must be a governmental system, democracy seems the best way we’ve found so far to keep the balance of stability and power of the people?

You’re correct about the Pope, in that I do not consider his authority as God’s priest valid - though I do certainly consider him the head of the Catholic Church. Kings the same, although not all monarchs claim to derive their right to rule from divine providence. We had something of a war about that once, I seem to recall.

As an atheist I should be completely sovereign. There is no God, no higher power to answer to, all I need to do is stay on the right side of the herd mentality. Personal responsibility is merely a matter of understanding cause and effect. As long as I do not stand in the way of reactions that I trigger, I am being responsible. I will not have to face negative consequences. So the only real responsibility I have is to be very very smart. Any negative consequences I face will be in direct proportion to my inability to foresee the effect that I caused. If I get nailed by the effect of someone else or something else, so be it, that’s a force of nature.

No higher power? There are certainly higher powers. The difference is that the higher powers atheists may follow can be done so voluntarily. I can choose who I treat as my higher power (to an extent). It may be a government, it may be your family and friends, it may even be a moral code. We also have those, you know!

Now, Love, this seems to be another piece of cockamamie BS. I see no evidence that any such thing exists.

Do you honestly believe that no atheists love?

Besides, I’ve never really met anyone who could define it properly either. So what’s the point of this one? If like God, someone proves to me it exists, I’ll believe in it then. Otherwise it seems like two people just finding each other and mutually deciding that they are willing to cling to one another in the dark. Any positive benefit comes merely from sexual or security benefit. Merely endorphins.

Alas, there is a difference between proving the existence of gods and the existence of love. A god existing is a fact of the universe; love is it not a object or being that exists, but a feeling. It’s comparable, not to the existence of gods, but to the existence of feelings of belief for gods. And all the proof that is required for us to say “Does mswas believe in a god?” is whether or not you feel that (obviously we must take it on trust, but you don’t have to).

The idea that atheists believe in love and feelings in purely clinical terms, waving away notions of emotional ideas and genuine movement, is a pretty silly but suprisingly (to me) common one. We don’t take science over poetry; we have both.

The state. Well this is a bit trickier. Now, it’s a higher power of sorts, but it seems rather abstract. It’s a grand corporation of individuals who work toward a common purpose. Ok, so what do I owe this corporation? Well, I never signed any contract with it. So ultimately I owe it nothing. Those that get to the highest levels of power seem to understand that. The best course of action is to merely game the mechanisms within the state in order to use them to my benefit.

What difference does believing in a god make in this context?

The difference, I would imagine, is in that a god provides a moral code that we must answer to. And so for we atheists, likewise, we have moral codes; we just choose which we believe is best or more accurate (although atheism doesn’t imply a lack of belief in an objective morality, of course).

So now, with my newfound discovery, I feel no obligation to anyone or anything. All of the social institutions in my life were based off of some sort of pseudo-religious basis. A bunch of deluded fools clinging to one another because they cannot handle dying. Everyone really only out for themselves but willing to go through the motions of caring about one another in order to best facilitate getting what they want. At this point in history it seems like the mechanisms are in place for us to operate at a more enlightened and honest level, total atomization, where we all recognize that we are individuals with no obligations whatsoever.

I don’t think all the institutions in my life are based on some sort of pseudo-religious basis. But I agree we have no inbuilt obligations to each other at all.

Here’s the thing; I am perfectly willing to enter those obligations. Whereas I can only assume you are suggesting you enter because you have no other choice, I am willing - of my own free will - to take on obligations. I have no need to give to charity - I do so. I have zero obligation to help people out - I try to, though I certainly fail at times. I have not one rule, one law, laid down on me that says that I must try to not be a jerk - but I try anyway.

Your OP says to me that you don’t understand atheists. I think you’d agree, to some extent, unless you think we’re all lying about feeling love, feeling obligations and all that business. But really, I don’t find that all that worrying, besides that I disagree. What I find worrying is that it seems your OP can be essentially summed up like this; if there is no god, I cannot understand why I or anyone would be a good person. If there is no rule mandating it, no cosmic law making something so, I cannot understand why someone would be anything other than a self-serving egoist.

And in answer to that I would say; because we can choose to.

[Stuffy]

@mswas

So, without resorting to any sort of emotional appeal whatsoever. Explain to me why I have any obligation not to rob, cheat, defraud, rape or murder you if I can get away with it. I’m willing to entertain these notions, if you make a good argument I will assimilate it into my new personal ethic as an atheist. Of course I realize that by having no obligation to you, you have no obligation to me either. I do not expect my behavior in any way to reflect on other atheists, but if it does, I do not really care, misplaced blame is always to my advantage. If being an atheist becomes politically unpopular at some point, I’ll just lie and pretend that my atheism was a phase.

Pure pragmatism? The ability to recognize that somebody can and probably would kick your ass if you crossed too many lines? Barring that the state my step in an throw your behind in a cell? See, no need for even empathy.

[Indistinguishable]

@mswas

Now, Love, this seems to be another piece of cockamamie BS. I see no evidence that any such thing exists.

There seems to be about the same amount of evidence for it as for hate, confusion, surprise, joy, boredom, embarrassment, and Doc.

[gonzomax]

How far off can you possibly be. You are taking your values and ascribing them to atheists. Many people can find a reason to do right. Being afraid of hell and damnation are crumby motivations.
You can not escape your actions. If you do them you own them. You can not pray them away, I believe there are reasons to do the right thing. Selfish actions and actions that are unethical are wrong to many non religious people. Doing wrong diminishes you.
I feel sorry for you. What kind of person could justify anything if he did not have a god to fear. A small thinking ,selfish self serving one ,the way I see it. I do not steal because I think it is wrong. I do not lie because I feel it is wrong. It diminishes me and my self worth. I would feel bad if I did those things. I am not afraid of god and hell.

[Lobohan]

If the only reason you keep in line is because you’re afraid of burning in hell forever, you’re a degenerate failure of a human being.

I, as an atheist, am nice to other people because I believe that there is only one life and I want everyone I come into contact with to have as good an experience as they can have. I’m a better person than the OP, who is only good because he believes that he’ll get a shiny new carrot at the end of the ride.

If you don’t realize that other people exist and have as much right to be happy as you do, you’re broken. Perhaps a sociopath?

Religion was invented to keep people like the OP in line. In that it has some value.

[Der_Trihs]

@mswas

Well, atheists keep telling me that an atheist can be moral. But what is moral? Morality seems to me like a system designed to keep the proles in line.

No, it’s a code of behavior that keeps humanity from consuming itself.

@mswas

As an atheist I should be completely sovereign. There is no God, no higher power to answer to, all I need to do is stay on the right side of the herd mentality.

The law and morality aren’t “the herd mentality”. And if you feel that way without a God, why don’t you feel that way if there is a God ? God has no more right to command you or to define morality than anyone else.

@mswas

Now, Love, this seems to be another piece of cockamamie BS. I see no evidence that any such thing exists. Besides, I’ve never really met anyone who could define it properly either.

It’s a biological fact, built into us. And has nothing to do with God, real or delusion. Will you claim next that if you lose faith in God you won’t believe in itchiness or sleep or dreams or curiosity ?

@mswas

The state. Well this is a bit trickier. Now, it’s a higher power of sorts, but it seems rather abstract. It’s a grand corporation of individuals who work toward a common purpose. Ok, so what do I owe this corporation? Well, I never signed any contract with it. So ultimately I owe it nothing.

You owe an immense amount to it. Without it, you wouldn’t be having this conversation ( no State to keep things together, no Internet ); odds are, you’d have been long dead. You don’t sign the social contract; you enter into it by benefiting from it.

@mswas

At this point in history it seems like the mechanisms are in place for us to operate at a more enlightened and honest level, total atomization, where we all recognize that we are individuals with no obligations whatsoever.

Otherwise known as anarchy; the war of all against all. No, that is not a desirable state, and never will be.

@mswas

I recognize that some might consider this sociopathic, and certainly it probably is by the strict definition, but I don’t really buy into the religion of psychology anymore either, more state sponsored control mechanisms. Sure I understand that there is a science underlying it, and power over others can be derived from it, but the notion of ‘mental illness’ is just a method of keeping the weak in line.

Utter garbage. Mental illness is an objective fact.

@mswas

So, without resorting to any sort of emotional appeal whatsoever. Explain to me why I have any obligation not to rob, cheat, defraud, rape or murder you if I can get away with it.

Because if enough people behave like that, society collapses.

@mswas

I do not see any rational reason to believe in such things as morality or love.

That’s easy enough. Morality exists because the alternative is mass death and immense suffering; civilization couldn’t survive without it. Morality makes life better for everyone. That’s plenty of justification for it; a far BETTER justification than the commands of some mythological sky-thug.

As for love, love is built into the brain. Not believing in love is like not believing in color vision or hunger. And people seek it out because it feels good; give people a choice between love and a spike in the eye, most people will go for love. Again, no need for God to justify it. No, there’s nothing mystical and profound about it, but so what ? There’s there’s nothing mystical and profound about it if there is a God, either; it’s just another emotion.

[Jragon]

You have absolutely no reason except pure empathy (and in some cases, self-interest) to not rob, murder, steal, cheat, and rape. Everyone else has no reason except self-interest, and possibly empathy to hang, imprison, or otherwise condemn you for it. You’re acting like God must exist for morality to have any basis, and everythign will go down the shitter without it which is actually a textbook example of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief.

Love, whatever, it’s an emotion, nothing but chemicals moving and switches flickering in your brain, but it’s still an observable occurence (often resulting in something such as a family… perpetuation of the species and all that).

As for the state, it’s an ambiguous institution. Same as the first paragraph, go ahead and not care, feel free to live in the woods without talking. Hell, there are people who have seceeded from their country and formed nations with populations in the single digits. Feel free to stay where you are and not pay taxes, feel free to not help your neighbor. Again we, in our own self-interest, for the sake of the EASE of living can do whatever we deem nescessary and proportional to your decisions to keep you from rocking the boat (if we care at all).

That’s the beauty of it, you have no obligation to do (or not do) anything, but expect a bumpy road if you don’t.

[MEBuckner]

@mswas

Now, Love, this seems to be another piece of cockamamie BS. I see no evidence that any such thing exists. Besides, I’ve never really met anyone who could define it properly either. So what’s the point of this one? If like God, someone proves to me it exists, I’ll believe in it then. Otherwise it seems like two people just finding each other and mutually deciding that they are willing to cling to one another in the dark. Any positive benefit comes merely from sexual or security benefit. Merely endorphins.

So, you’ve never experienced love? Never felt all fluttery around another person, or all warm and fuzzy to be with them? Never felt a stab of fear at the thought that another person might be in danger? (Recently, one of my cats has been sick; many trips to the vet have ensued. At various times in all this I’ve felt gnawing worry, fear, sadness, guilt, relief, and happiness.)

If someone is really incapable of feeling love, then I would advise him or her to obey the laws the rest of us semi-hairless apes have devised, lest the men with guns and shiny metal things on their chests come to take him and lock him up in a little concrete room. Admittedly, some of our laws are silly or even unjust, but I don’t think it would be advisable for someone with the idiosyncratic mental makeup you describe to try to figure out which ones are which. I presume (perhaps rashly) that the benefits of not being locked up in a little concrete room would be self-evident. If you were born with some unfortunate condition which caused you not to feel hunger, I guess you could monitor your blood sugar or set an alarm clock to remind you to consume nutrients; and I guess a (non-sadistic) sociopath could (maybe) reason his way into not doing the things that cause the rest of us to hunt him down with torches and pitchforks.
Seriously, do you really think all atheists are sociopaths? Certainly part of the reason I obey the laws of the land is the whole “avoiding being locked up in a little concrete room” thing, but I also, or even mostly, obey laws (and in other ways act morally) because doing makes me feel happy, and not doing so makes me feel guilty and bad about myself. I have a conscience, the result of socialization (how I was raised and a few decades of reinforcement since) and millions of years of evolution as social primates. People (yes! atheists are people too!) act morally in the same way they eat, because they have a strong innate drive to do so–I eat because I get hungry; I act morally because I care about the approval of the other primates and because I have an empathic faculty (whether inborn, inculcated, or some of both) which causes me to not like seeing others suffer and to want to do something about it, or at the very least not cause suffering.

Of course the specific moral codes adopted by whatever group you’re born into may vary. (One could make an analogy with the hard-wired ability to learn a language all humans have, and the actual language you soak up as a child.) Some moral codes may be narrowly ethnocentric, or instill a lot of counter-productive or downright harmful sexual hang-ups, or be flawed in other ways. This is where the rationality and critical thinking secular humanists and other atheists often espouse come in. However no one (save our hypothetical high-functioning sociopath) really has to actually reason their way from first principles into this whole “I think I’ll adopt some sort of moral code” thing. (Pace various Enlightenment philosophers.)

[Lightnin]

Please, mswas, please don’t become an atheist.

Not only would you give the rest of us a bad name, you’re clearly clinically insane if the only thing keeping you from doing evil is the threat of punishment.

Either that, or you’re trolling. Which is it?

[Lightnin]

On second thought, what I wrote might be a bit confrontational. I apologize, but I still feel as though you’re not quite debating honestly.

[Orbifold]

Yep, starting to feel insulted.

Let me try to explain this to you in small words:

I believe order is better in the long run than anarchy. This is because I have thought about and imagined the results of both, and decided for myself that by and large order is better.

I am more than capable of believing that certain behaviours will result in better outcomes than other behaviours, just I can believe that hitting my head with a hammer might not be advisable. Morals fall under this category.

I love my wife. Based on what evidence, you ask? My direct personal experience of my own emotions. If you keep implying that I don’t love my wife because I’m an atheist then I will start to get cross. You will have ample evidence for that emotion as well, I assure you.

Finally, I trust someone such as myself…someone who has thought about these issues and tried to reach their own conclusions…much more than I trust someone who only behaves a certain way because someone else told them to.