I have decided to become an atheist (hypothetical)

[MrDibble]

mswas, you seem to have confused atheists with Vulcans, in that you think we are all emotionless logic machines, constantly doing cost/benefit analyses to determine our behaviour. What gave you that impression, I don’t know.

I, for one, have said before that atheism is both an intellectual and aesthetic stance for me. Emotion is central to it. And part of that emotion is empathy for everyone - hence Secular Humanism, which while not a necessary consequence of, often goes hand in hand with, atheism. An awareness that through biology and necessity, Man is a social being - “No Man is an Island”. We stand together or we all hang separately. Although I am an Anarchist , I do not favour anarchy.

But if you insist on using logic only, I can play - sure, you could game the system for your own benefit, and it might pay out, but only if you are sure you’re not getting gamed at the same time - read Critical Mass by Ball sometime, it might open your eyes to the fact that altruism makes the most sense for everyone, in the long run.

[SentientMeat]

@mswas

Explain to me why I have any obligation not to rob, cheat, defraud, rape or murder you if I can get away with it.

Do you feel like raping or killing anyone, or would you say you have some (as yet inexplicable, but maybe we could explore it) antipathy towards such actions?

Now, maybe you really don’t feel any kind of revulsion towards the thought of taking or destroying the life of another human, in which case you might indeed suffer “mind-blindness”, a condition in which you cannot empathise, which characterises many psychopaths.

But if you can empathise, it would be interesting toexplore possible evolutionary mechanisms for this, wouldn’t it? I’d recommend Matt Ridley’s The Origin of Virtue as an excellent starting point.

[Ale]

Just in case you are not just yanking our chains with a preposterous OP, what made you arrive at that concept of what an atheist morals (or lack of) are?. I mean, is that someone told you, your own observation of atheists around you or the end result of a thought analysis?

If the later I have to say that the premise: God equals morals and ethics, thus lack of god (or belief in it) equals lack of morals and ethics, therefore atheists are egotist self serving sociopathic jerks.
Let me tell you that you have it all wrong right from the beggining.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I’m concerned that mswas’ goal is to just barely skate the edge of irredeemably inflammatory (I mean, c’mon, you come up with some loopy fantasy, call it atheism, and also call it sociopathic? Please…) and lure atheist members to insult him and get warnings for their trouble.

In fact, this is my sole concern because I see nothing I’d consider a challenge to my atheism or anything else.

[Princhester]

**mswas ** if you started applying the type of cold half logic you apply above to your religion and not just to atheism, you might be surprised where you end up. You propose that without a god, fuzzy concepts like morality and love and so on mean nothing and that all one has left is self interest. If you apply the same logic, but propose a god, you end up in exactly the same place since the existence of a particular being who says you are to behave in certain ways doesn’t do anything more to give morality and love and so on meaning.

Alteratively, if you propose that morality and love and so on are meaningful because an appropriate supernatural being says so, then one can equally suppose that they are meaningful because appropriate humans say so.

[Nancarrow]

The source of atheist morality , for those* who have shown themselves unable or unwilling to understand any other explanation.

*by whom I mean mswas

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Nancarrow

The source of atheist morality , for those* who have shown themselves unable or unwilling to understand any other explanation.

*by whom I mean mswas

Well, that took me a couple seconds to get.

But as an atheist, now I’m confused…I must find out more about these higher powers, “The” and “De”! Then, maybe, I can (hypothetically) convert.

[MEBuckner]

@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?

Moderator’s Note: Let’s all remember to attack the arguments, not the poster, and to keep accusations of trolling where they belong (not here).

[F.U.Shakespeare]

OK, if there’s no entity to punish us in the afterlife, there’s no reason not to rape, pillage and plunder. Got it.

Would it follow by this logic that anyone who believes in a religion that preaches complete forgiveness of sins by the grace of God is similarly unrestrained?

I.e., if you truly believe that by accepting Jesus, Og or Bob, or confessing to your priest, etc., you’ll be forgiven of your sins in the afterlife?

Ergo, people who accept such a faith (and I know that not all religious people do) are sociopaths?

[jjimm]

Sorry, mswas, I’m having problems relating your argument to your evident disbelief in Shiva, god of destruction.

[Baldwin]

Mswas, how is it possible, after years of seeing the posts on the SDMB from myself and many other moral, empathetic atheists, for you to confuse atheism with nihilism? I don’t think you’re that stupid. The only other possibility I see is that you’ve posted an enormous straw man, something you don’t actually believe, for reasons other than an honest debate.

Of course, I could be wrong. Any chance at all you’re going to come back and logically defend your OP?

[Ravenman]

It is remarkable that the OP describes all of the terrible things that he thinks atheists believe, and yet we all know that the people who actually go through those experiences aren’t really atheists. They are libertarians. [cue ominous music]

[glee]

If God tells you to sacrifice your child to Him, would you do it?

Do you think that some religious beliefs are clearly morally wrong?

Do you disagree with all religions that make conflicting claims to yours?

Welcome to the world of atheism, where you do right by society, because it’s so obviously correct.

[Marley23]

@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.

You’ve moved very quickly here from “I don’t draw morality from God” to “Without God I don’t even have an opinion on what behavior might be moral, much less any inclination to follow it.” This isn’t how most atheists think, or indeed how any atheist I have met thinks.

It goes without saying that you’ve created a really insulting caricature here.

[monavis]

@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.

If you rob, cheat, steal,etc. You are harming yourself as well as others. To get along with the rest of society if you do these things then you are giving them the right to do the same to you, so for your own sake you respect the rights of others.

Before there were any Commandments there was people who respected the rights of others and found it was helpful to themselves as well. Even with the rules, laws. or comandments people still do harm others so the rules in themselves are not a deterrent there are many people who believe in God are in prisons.

Monavis

[Ale]

@Baldwin

MswasThe only other possibility I see is that you’ve posted an enormous straw man,

Ya think?, biggest I´ve seen since I last watched “The Wickerman”.

[Baldwin]

@Ale

Ya think?, biggest I´ve seen since I last watched “The Wickerman”.

And the people lighting that thing up with a man trapped inside? Definitely not atheists.

At least the other thread did bring up an ad for “Atheist Singles!”

[lekatt]

@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.

If atheism is forced upon you, who does the forcing. Are you not in control of your life? Can you not choose what you will believe when there is no proof on either side of an argument? It seems to me you have accepted atheism because you can find no proof otherwise. Now there are many people who reject atheism because they have found proof otherwise. That is pretty much the way of the world. Either side is not superior to the other, just different ideas that can’t be proved, but should be respected by all.

[Ludovic]

So, without resorting to any sort of emotional appeal whatsoever.

But you’re the one using an emotional here. Just because something is unpleasant has no impact on it being true or false.

In fact, the comforts of belief points slightly toward its not being true, because people can deceive themselves with untrue but pleasant things, less so with unpleasant ones.

[Czarcasm]

@lekatt

If atheism is forced upon you, who does the forcing. Are you not in control of your life? Can you not choose what you will believe when there is no proof on either side of an argument? It seems to me you have accepted atheism because you can find no proof otherwise. Now there are many people who reject atheism because they have found proof otherwise. That is pretty much the way of the world. Either side is not superior to the other, just different ideas that can’t be proved, but should be respected by all.

I am really tired of explaining to you, over and over and over again, the difference between “evidence” and “proof”, so I can only assume that you interchange the two words on purpose. When you decide to argue honestly, I will respond to your questions.