Moral Values of an Atheist

by hamilcarr 100 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hamilcarr

  A thread spirals into meaninglessness and frustration every time Hitler is brought into it, DD.

  I totally agree Gopher!

  This is another persistent misunderstanding with regards to atheism. Because many people associate communism with atheism, it has only recently become known that Stalin was a pious man. He secretly prayed in an underground Russian-orthodox chapel --- DAILY! Now, if there's one thing uniting atheists it's that they do NOT pray in a chapel!

  So, what about Hitler? As an Austrian, he was born and raised a catholic but probably left the church. Does it imply he became an atheist? Not at all! He got involved in occultism and thoroughly intrigued by Germanic pagan gods.

  Conclusion: Both Stalin and Hitler rejected organized religion because it interfered with their own power, but they never denied the existence of (a) higher being(s). Since that is the very definition of theism, they cannot be called atheists.
• 

  Zico

  Ah Gopher, one of my favourite posters! (I mean this)
  
  "Just some questions, Zico"
  
  I expected some!
  
  "Why do you say "higher" good. Why can't we just say good and bad?"
  
  We can, if you prefer. I used the term 'higher' good because a few posters claimed to have 'higher' values as atheists. Who says they're higher? Where did this concept of a 'higher' good or 'higher value' come from?
  
  "Who is the "our" to which you refer?"
  
  The people on this board and in this thread who predominantly come from Judeo-Christian societies and are thus strongly influenced by Christianity, even if they don't want to admit it!
  
  "What about the two-thirds of the world that does not claim to be Christian? Are they automatically immoral..."
  
  No, and in case you think I was suggesting atheists are immoral simply because they are not Christians, I do not believe this.
  
  "...or can they develop 'constructs of good' that are independent of Christianity?"
  
  I don't think people are inherently 'good' I think the concept of good is something that is accumulated through generations of cultural imprinting. I believe our (see above definition of our) cultural imprinting and thus definition of good finds it's basis in Christianity. There are other 'constructs of good' and definitions, but I'm trying to work from a definition I think I share with the atheists on this thread, which finds it's fundamental basis in the golden rule.
  
  My own questions, if I may:
  
  If all that exists is a godless survival of the fittest world, where is good? Where does the concept of good and bad come from? How is following the golden rule, for example, of benefit? What stops individuals from spreading their seed at the cost of the community?
  
  I'd also be interested in hearing your own definition of 'good' if you have one?
  
  ----------------------
  
  Hamilcarr, I'd also be interested in hearing your definition of 'good'
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Gopher

  Nope. Self-righteous implies a feeling of smug superiority.

  So you're not going to tell us that you are better off for being atheists.

  Burden of proof would be on the one who says Hitler or Stalin killed people because they weren't atheist.

  Next you'll be telling us neither Hitler nor Stalin believed their atheist Ideologies were superior.
• 

  beksbks

  Why in the world would you bring Hitler and Stalin into this?? Has anyone said there are no bad Atheists? Why that would be as foolish as saying there are no good Christians. I'm sure I could find an example of one or two.
• 

  Gopher

  Nope. Self-righteous implies a feeling of smug superiority.

  So you're not going to tell us that you are better off for being atheists.

  Yes I will tell you that. Atheism has helped me clearly define my spirituality and relationship to the world and the people in it. And I am proud to be part of the human race, and do what I can to help my neighbor because I want the world to be a better place.

  However, I don't attempt to convert OTHERS to my atheism. But if you ask, I will certainly answer about the philosophy that works for me!

  Burden of proof would be on the one who says Hitler or Stalin killed people because they weren't atheist.

  Next you'll be telling us neither Hitler nor Stalin believed their atheist Ideologies were superior.

  As a previous poster mentioned, it isn't a given that Hitler and Stalin were themselves atheist. Communism and totalitarianism do not necessarily mean the absence of religion.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Yes I will tell you that. Atheism has helped me clearly define my spirituality and relationship to the world and the people in it. And I am proud to be part of the human race, and do what I can to help my neighbor because I want the world to be a better place.

  Looks a little smug to me.
• 

  Gopher

  Zico,

  Thanks for offering good questions, and I enjoy these types of discussions.

  I don't necessarily know if atheists have higher values as a whole. I think if a person wants to be helpful and concerned and caring, they will do so whether they have a god-belief or not. In my view, the atheist/humanist approach to showing concern and care for others (when it is exercised) is a clear proof of an inner good in humanity. If the believer does good, is it because they are good (I hope so)? Or is it because they hope for a reward, or fear a punishment for doing bad?

  In mentioning "survival of the fittest", you're introducing evolutionary concepts here and linking them to atheism. "Survival of the fittest' is about science, and is what happened regardless of whether there is a creator-god.

  In the human world, good and bad emanates from within a person. I don't mean to speak for all atheists, just myself, but my definition of good has a lot to do with showing concern and care for others. (If you think it's more than that, feel free to add on.) Concern and care for others helps promote the survival and well-being of the community. In times of crisis, we see people of all stripes (nationalities, faiths) come together without discrimination and help each other, for the common good. Good comes out of necessity.
• 

  Gopher

  That's right, Deputy Dog. You attack a person if you cannot attack the argument.
• 

  hamilcarr

  Hi Zico,

  My definition of good? I agree with you on the importance of the golden rule, i think it's a very useful source of inspiration. I notice you like to emphasize the Judeo-Christian nature of this rule, but I'm afraid this may be incorrect. The oldest 'European' versions of the rule are from Greek origin (quotes from Wikipedia, where you can find the exact sources):

  The Golden Rule was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. A few examples:

  "Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." (Pittacus [1] )

  "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." (Thales [2] )

  "What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." (Pythagorean)

  "Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." (Isocrates [3] )

  "What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." (Epictetus [4] )

  I was taught that evolution --- natural selection --- does not operate on individuals, but on populations (or communities), i.e. not the mutation itself = evolution, but the spread. This means that there are no evolutionary advantages involved in egocentric behavior. What we observe throughout human history is the broadening of the community we apply the golden rule to (from our family to our tribe to our nation/religion to all men to all animals). If we cherish the lifes of all individuals no matter their religious affiliations, their sexual inclinations, their political views, etc. we are 'good'. I started this thread because I had observed that while christians claim they are the protectors of ethics their 'love thy neighbor' is less universal than atheists'.

  H.
• 

  Gopher

  Zico,

  I forgot one comment I wanted to make on this assessment:

  I don't think people are inherently 'good'

  This thought seems to be based on viewing the world through a religious prism. I would submit to you that religion can be a sort of marketing ploy. Many marketers a told to 'create a need' and then 'fill that need' with their product.

  Did you ever see the movie "Music Man"? It's a fictional story about traveling salesman Harold Hill who came to a town to convince everyone they 'needed' his musical instruments. He saw an opportunity when a new 'pool table' was installed in a building on the main street, and warned everyone of the dangers of children playing pool. He sold the townspeople on the idea of buying musical instruments for their children, to help them avoid the pool table which represented nothing less than "Trouble -- right here in River City!"

  To me religion is like the "Music Man". We die...something must be amiss. Aha -- it's because we "sin". If it weren't for religion, we would have never known the concept of "sin". But guess what, religion not only has created the need to overcome "sin", but they have a product that will help you gain that. In Christianity, that product is "salvation".

  And it's a scheme that has worked, because religion claims to explain the unexplainable, to be able to open a window into the unseeable and unknowable. Religion isn't the only industry that has marketed ideas based on fantastic notions, but they are in that class (IMHO).