Is Atheism Fundamentally Evil?

[Seth]

fuckint, in a cahtolic country I can say I'm an atheist... try saying that in a muslamyc country

You can now, but back in the day there would be an interesting collection of torture tools waiting for you.

Modern day christianity is a relatively toothless tiger; in the past it has been just as ferocious as Islam. It did not abandon this position out of a moral re-awakening, but because it was dragged unwillingly to relative powerlessness by the inexorable tide of secularism in Europe.

Wayback machine fallacy.

[pErvinalia]

Actually I would say there is a significant difference compare and contrast the nature of the characters Jesus and Mohammed compare Gospel to Hadith .There is no 'Lamb of Islam' there is only a murderous thief a leader of bandits liars oath- breakers slave traders torturers unashamed rapists and paedophiles
Now I'm not one to defend christianity But JUST HOW FUCKING STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO NOT SEE A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN THE SOURCE MATERIAL ?
And don't even mention the Old testament since Islam takes credit for all of that barbarism too .

When you get shouty like a lunatic you get ignored.

[pErvinalia]

Now you're just deliberately creating subjects to goad certain people.

Not at all. Morals and Ethics are a hobby. One can test the bounds of a moral or ethical declaration by challenging it - and indeed one should when incredibly broad or general moral descriptors are applied to an entire section of society, such as 'atheists are fundamentally evil' etc. How the declaimer meets that challenge informs us as to limits and limitations of their utterances.

Absolutely true, as I've been doing for years and years. But don't expect anyone here to understand that because they are the prime purveyors of "incredibly broad or general moral descriptors [that] are applied to an entire section of society", such as Catholics or Republicans.

Or Muslims or Marxists?

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Atheism is living without an external moral compass calibration, and therefore atheists are more prone to deviation from moral behavior than those with a source of external calibration.

What complete and utter bullshit. There is a wide variety of ethical systems atheists and humanists may adopt. You are assuming that only religion (via a supernatural being's power) has either the right and/or the ability to provide moral guidance.

I thought you were against monopolies?

But atheism has no moral compass as a fundamental component. Atheism is, by your own arguments, absolutely nothing other than a "lack of belief in god or gods." That's what's nihilistic about it. It poses nothing positive, it's negative philosophical space. It states no premises or beliefs that can be examined for moral strength, it says only one thing and is otherwise an empty vessel that the atheist may fill up with anything he pleases, or nothing, provided only that he doesn't try to fill it up with "belief in god or gods."

And no, I'm not assuming that religion is the only source of moral compass, I'm saying that atheism IS NOT a source of moral compass, and I'm absolutely correct in saying so. Religion, on the other hand, both theistic and non-theistic, has been the primary source of moral compass for hundreds of thousands of years, which is why it persists in human culture. It's mostly useful and beneficial to human society to have religion within the community. This is not of course invariably true, but more often than not, by a substantial margin, religion is beneficial.

Atheism is not. A "lack of belief in god or gods" provides no intrinsic benefits at all and it leaves in its wake nothing but emptiness that is all too easily and frequently filled up with ignorance, bias, intolerance, bigotry, hate and immorality.

Everything that atheists claim as a benefit of atheism is not, it's the product of overwriting the nihilism of atheism with some other ideology, one which may or may not have its own moral compass, and often does not, like science, which leaves the Scientatheist with a head full of science and no moral guidance. If a Scientatheist finds moral guidance it's from some other source than science or atheism, and it's usually some hare-brained liberal twaddle that is rife with unintended consequences that the atheist is unable or unwilling to see, as this forum and others like it so clearly demonstrate.

[Seth]

Now you're just deliberately creating subjects to goad certain people.

Not at all. Morals and Ethics are a hobby. One can test the bounds of a moral or ethical declaration by challenging it - and indeed one should when incredibly broad or general moral descriptors are applied to an entire section of society, such as 'atheists are fundamentally evil' etc. How the declaimer meets that challenge informs us as to limits and limitations of their utterances.

Absolutely true, as I've been doing for years and years. But don't expect anyone here to understand that because they are the prime purveyors of "incredibly broad or general moral descriptors [that] are applied to an entire section of society", such as Catholics or Republicans.

Or Muslims or Marxists?

Ah, but the difference is I can back up my moral opposition to Muslims and Marxists with actual facts, whereas you are unable to back up your slanders with anything but more slanders.

[pErvinalia]

Not significantly different from Catholics and evangelicals.

Er, entirely different actually. Your statement is a prime example of the loss of moral compass calibration that I refer to. You hate Catholics so much that you aren't even able to see when you are making accusations that are entirely untrue. And if you are aware of the untruth of what you're saying, then your claims are simply evil and utterly immoral and they prove my point quite perfectly: Atheists can be evil.

God you are full of bollocks.

[Seth]

Not significantly different from Catholics and evangelicals.

Er, entirely different actually. Your statement is a prime example of the loss of moral compass calibration that I refer to. You hate Catholics so much that you aren't even able to see when you are making accusations that are entirely untrue. And if you are aware of the untruth of what you're saying, then your claims are simply evil and utterly immoral and they prove my point quite perfectly: Atheists can be evil.

God you are full of bollocks.

Well, far better than than to be a person empty of reason.

[pErvinalia]

fuckint, in a cahtolic country I can say I'm an atheist... try saying that in a muslamyc country

You can now, but back in the day there would be an interesting collection of torture tools waiting for you.

Modern day christianity is a relatively toothless tiger; in the past it has been just as ferocious as Islam. It did not abandon this position out of a moral re-awakening, but because it was dragged unwillingly to relative powerlessness by the inexorable tide of secularism in Europe.

Wayback machine fallacy.

Made up fallacy fallacy.

[pErvinalia]

Now you're just deliberately creating subjects to goad certain people.

Not at all. Morals and Ethics are a hobby. One can test the bounds of a moral or ethical declaration by challenging it - and indeed one should when incredibly broad or general moral descriptors are applied to an entire section of society, such as 'atheists are fundamentally evil' etc. How the declaimer meets that challenge informs us as to limits and limitations of their utterances.

Absolutely true, as I've been doing for years and years. But don't expect anyone here to understand that because they are the prime purveyors of "incredibly broad or general moral descriptors [that] are applied to an entire section of society", such as Catholics or Republicans.

Or Muslims or Marxists?

Ah, but the difference is I can back up my moral opposition to Muslims and Marxists with actual facts, whereas you are unable to back up your slanders with anything but more slanders.

Bullshit. You are blinkered up the wahzoo. You really inhabit a fantasy world.

[Seth]

Bullshit. You are blinkered up the wahzoo. You really inhabit a fantasy world.

You only believe that to be true because you're living in your fantasy world. You're like Alice in Wonderland and I'm your Absalom. Now pay attention child, for things are not as they seem to you to be...

[Hermit]

But atheism has no moral compass as a fundamental component. Atheism is, by your own arguments, absolutely nothing other than a "lack of belief in god or gods." That's what's nihilistic about it. It poses nothing positive, it's negative philosophical space. It states no premises or beliefs that can be examined for moral strength, it says only one thing and is otherwise an empty vessel that the atheist may fill up with anything he pleases, or nothing, provided only that he doesn't try to fill it up with "belief in god or gods."

That is a very common view taken by Christians and Muslims. They proceed to conflate amorality with immorality and regard it as evil. This train of thought is not universal, but it is all too common.

Atheism is indeed nothing other than a "lack of belief in god or gods", but it is nihilistic only in regard to the supernatural - except to those who keep asserting that morals are god-given, which is an assertion most theists hold to be true.

[Hermit]

I've never eaten a baby either...

Neither have I, but I've eaten a babysitter. Does that count?

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

'm saying that atheism IS NOT a source of moral compass, and I'm absolutely correct in saying so.

Way to miss a vital point. Atheism itself is nothing other than choosing not to believe in god. In itself, it provides no direct moral guidance, although it has the benefit of avoiding religious cant disguised as morality.

Atheists can examine and choose a variety of ethical positions, deriving from both innate morality (hominids evolved to co-operate as well as compete) and rational, philosophical considerations, with no direct derivation from an atheist stance. Some of these positions may overlap with some of the moral structures in various religions, but their origin is not supernatural.

What I shot down in flames was your ignorant claim that religions are the only possible source of morality.

[Brian Peacock]

Seth wrote:

Atheism is living without an external moral compass calibration, and therefore atheists are more prone to deviation from moral behavior than those with a source of external calibration.

What complete and utter bullshit. There is a wide variety of ethical systems atheists and humanists may adopt. You are assuming that only religion (via a supernatural being's power) has either the right and/or the ability to provide moral guidance.

I thought you were against monopolies?

But atheism has no moral compass as a fundamental component. Atheism is, by your own arguments, absolutely nothing other than a "lack of belief in god or gods." That's what's nihilistic about it. It poses nothing positive, it's negative philosophical space. It states no premises or beliefs that can be examined for moral strength, it says only one thing and is otherwise an empty vessel that the atheist may fill up with anything he pleases, or nothing, provided only that he doesn't try to fill it up with "belief in god or gods."

And no, I'm not assuming that religion is the only source of moral compass, I'm saying that atheism IS NOT a source of moral compass, and I'm absolutely correct in saying so. Religion, on the other hand, both theistic and non-theistic, has been the primary source of moral compass for hundreds of thousands of years, which is why it persists in human culture. It's mostly useful and beneficial to human society to have religion within the community. This is not of course invariably true, but more often than not, by a substantial margin, religion is beneficial.

Atheism is not. A "lack of belief in god or gods" provides no intrinsic benefits at all and it leaves in its wake nothing but emptiness that is all too easily and frequently filled up with ignorance, bias, intolerance, bigotry, hate and immorality.

Everything that atheists claim as a benefit of atheism is not, it's the product of overwriting the nihilism of atheism with some other ideology, one which may or may not have its own moral compass, and often does not, like science, which leaves the Scientatheist with a head full of science and no moral guidance. If a Scientatheist finds moral guidance it's from some other source than science or atheism, and it's usually some hare-brained liberal twaddle that is rife with unintended consequences that the atheist is unable or unwilling to see, as this forum and others like it so clearly demonstrate.

Yes, atheists reject religioys claims and assertion made on behalf of supernatural entities, but atheists don't lack moral capacity or reasoning as a consequence of that simply because morality isn't the preserve of religion or the religious. Now, if you think that morality is the preserve of religion then you're likely to assume that atheists are going to be lacking some necessary moral component that only religion can provide, and as a result you may feel that atheism is open to the charge of immorality. But as you say, lacking a belief in God or gods says nothing about one's values or moral outlook - it is simply a conclusion about a certain species of claim. Why you think that atheism should entail a specific moral code, and that that code should essentially follow a religious model, is, frankly, as ludicrous as it is rationally incoherent. If religiosity acts as some kind of moral compass or brake then ask yourself why some religious people do bad things in the name of their religion and why most atheists don't do bad things in no-name of nothing. In other words, you're effectively saying that good can only be verified and validated in terms of religion and that atheists must therefore be bad for rejecting religion. This is the same sort of doctrinal nonsense as highlighted in the OP, but when one considers the plethora of religions and their subordinate denominations, all of which lay a claim to moral truth, how are you to alight upon the proper authority capable of determining the bounds of good and evil, right and wrong, by which all should live (including true believers, different believers, indifferent believers, and non-believers), and from where or what is that authority drawn?

[pErvinalia]

Stamp collectors are evil!