Just to be clear, you guys don’t believe in souls, correct?
If this is so, then is suicide/killing/murder and abortion as bad to you guys as it is to us religous folk?
Nope, no souls. Personally, I don’t see abortion as necessarily bad, and suicide is an individual’s choice and is therefore neither good nor bad. Murder, of course, is wrong whether you believe in the existence of a soul or not. But killing in self-defense is perfectly acceptable as a last option. YMMV.
You don’t need to be religious to have ethics. Some athiests I know are much more “moral” than some of the Christians.
Also, I feel compelled to point out that not all athiests have the same set of beliefs. Athiests vary as widely as religious people.
An atheist, to take the word literally, means one who does not believe in a god or gods.
Strictly speaking, it would be possible to be an athiest and to believe in a soul of some kind, but I think it’s safe to say most atheists would have no belief in a metaphysical construct such as a soul.
Your question presupposes there is some link between one’s belief in a soul, and one’s view of the morality of suicide, killing, murder and abortion. There is not necessarily any link at all. For most atheists, morailty derives neither from metaphysical concepts nor the supposed prescriptions of a given deity, but the sense of right and wrong applicable to one’s society, culture and context derived from the contract of responsibilities one has with regard to oneself and others.
Your question also lumps together ‘suicide, killing, murder and abortion’ as if one’s attitude towards any one must necessarily apply to the other three. It is possible for someone to have distinct views about the morality of all four.
suicide/killing/murder is bad to this atheist because it resluts in the dramatic lowering of the quality of life of the relatives/friends of the dead.
Also, life, while we take it for granted mostly, is a wonderful thing. The end of life is very sad.
I wouldn’t say that at all.
It’s a person’s potential, aspirations, and personal happiness that give their lives value, to me at least.
But then again, technically I am not one to whom you are phrasing the question. I’m an agnostic. Atheism requires just as big an unscientific leap of faith as any religion.
I look forward to my own death (apart from the sadness it will cause to my relatives) for several reasons - I get to find out what actually happens to my consciousness/self-awareness.
Assuming death is the end of consciousness - there stops being a ‘me’ to suffer.
Assuming death isn’t then end of consciousness - I get to say to myself - “I am dead now. Anything I do won’t matter. I can’t kill myself because I am already dead”
Ditto. On everything.
I hate the assumption that just because I have no diety, then I have no morals. If the only reason you haven’t murdered someone is the fear of eternal damnation, then you have problems. Looking back it seems as I have strayed from the OP, but regardless, morals are not derived from belief in a diety and/or a soul.
So, ending life is wrong because society doesn’t accept it?
( That sounded kinda snobbish, don’t take it that way.)
The following are my opinions based on the OP (not interested in debates, at least not here):
Souls: nope, don’t believe in them. nor an “afterlife”. when you die, you’re dead. the end.
abortion: up to the woman, but she should at least discuss it with the father unless it’s rape or incest.
suicide: a personal choice, especially when terminal illness is involved.
murder: only in self defense or in the defense of someone who is unable to defend themselves (mentally or physically unable to defend themselves such as children and the elderly)
capital punishment: in favor of under certain circumstances (see above; anyone who deliberately and knowingly kills a child should die)
CaptBushido I don’t mean to argue but that is rather pedantic of you. Technically all atheists are agnostic if you can prove to them that a human being is incapable of knowing any ‘truths’. Technically I am agnostic, but if you remove the pedantry - I am almost totally atheist, since I find the existence of God extremely unlikely.
I’m sorry if it sounded like I made that assumtion, I assure you I didn’t.
It’s an accounting question, methinks. Suicide affects more than just the deceased, but the perpetrator in that case is the only one who can weigh those outcomes. Generally, I see it as selfish.
Killing another/murder, outside of war, which is a special case, implies taking another’s account into hand. Generally speaking, you don’t have the right to exercise control over that account, and if you overstep your bounds and (attempt to) exercise that degree of control, we, as a society, must step in and either prevent that or sanction you for it.
This is far different from exercising some societal control over your economic activities, as the life and breathe of an individual is directly concerned.
Lobsang
Yeah, I understand that, but I’ve seen way too many atheists that actually swear that they believe without a doubt that there is no divine being of any sort.
I find that just plain asinine, and try to distance myself from them at every opportunity. I find the definition of God as defined in all of the various religions to be quite doubtful, but I do believe that there is significant evidence, simply in the way the universe is structured, to imply some sort of powerful sentient intervention.
life/ the universe/ and everything is agreeably insanely non-comprehensible. But why assume this is due to some supreme being? Why not accept that it is simply a scientific question that will take a very long time to answer? (but must be answerable because surely there is no god, as there is no logic behind the existence of a god. If there was logic in the existence of god then who created god? It is not logical for there to exist a concept that was not it’self brought into being by another)
I believe I have just contradicted myself. I am drunk, but I may have applied the same logic to the non-existence of god to the non-existence of the big-bang.
we assign levels of believability to everything that enters our brain via our senses. I do not assign total believability to the big bang theory. It is only a gap-filler until science is clever enough to find out what actually happened.
<hic>
The OP makes no sense ot me. Wouldn’t having a soul make murder a lesser, rather than a greater crime?
If when you’re dead, you’re dead and that’s it, then murder has deprived someone of their existence entirely - which is clearly much worse than if they’ve just floated off to heaven.
So does this make Christians less moral than atheists? (Yes, yes, not a fit question for MPIMS, but that could go to GD or BBQ depending on how you put it.)
An equally valid question would be, “Does believing in an afterlife make certain religious believers more likely to kill others, because killing someone isn’t really ending his life, but ‘sending him home’?” It pretty much exposes the absurdity of the idea that people who don’t believe in souls are OK with going around bumping people off.
I’m not an atheist, but I don’t believe in a “soul” (to me an almost undefinably vague concept, and one that’s not a necessary condition for human consciousness) or an afterlife, and furthermore don’t believe that morality should be looked at as something given to humans by God. Rather, I think morality should be derived from examining the consequences of one’s actions. In the case of killing a person, the consequence is denying that person the freedom to live out the rest of his life, for better or worse, and denying his loved ones the joy of interacting with him. I believe those reasons are a sufficient explanation of why murder is morally abhorrent.
Lobsang: Fair enough, we both seem to agree that we don’t know what the hell is up with universe, and that works for me!
Worse, since there is no after-life afterwards. Death is final. Statements like “kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out” could never be made by an atheist.