Yes, I know, never discuss religion in ppolite company, but this is something I've encountered a lot lately.

That is, the argument from various religious people that if one is atheist, one has no moral compass and would just go around killing and raping because there's no risk of divine punishment.

— —

If fear of god is the only reason you're not going on rampage, you're a bad human being. The reason people generally don't just treat others like shit is because of something called "empathy", being able to see things from other people's view, and regarding them as equally important people as yourself.

You'd think this is something that everyone gets, but I've had to explain this to three different people in the last few days.

If religion suddenly disappeared tomorrow, not much would change.

Well, it's also due to the common misconception that rules keep people in line. Rules are easily broken. The reason the people who don't go on a rampage don't is because they're better people than that.

When I'm confronted with this attitude, I like to respond by asking them if this means they'd go on a murder spree if there was no God. As yet, nobody has said "yes".

I've seen a few people who claim that since Atheists don't believe in a God, we have nothing to live for and should just kill ourselves.

What.

If anything, somebody who doesn't believe in God values life more, seeing as without an afterlife, this one is all you've got.

....Huh?

You mean besides a sizable percentage of Moral Guardians not having a good excuse anymore, the entire sovereign state of Vatican City becoming useless, countless religious conflicts vanishing, no more need for a "separation of church and state" clause, all those theologians who study the nature of morality for a living suddenly having a useless degree, churches going away, church-run community events ceasing, lack of mythological reference pools to pull fantasy inspiration from, millions of people who depend on and have devoted their lives to religion suddenly being lost and very confused in a cruel world, a loss of identity for members of religion, major literary works becoming obsolete, no more funny joke religions, a lack of scientologist actors for the media to report on, the death of several industries based around manufacturing religious objects, the Dalai Lama losing credibility and possibly his influence of the Tibetan people, and several other changes that I probably haven't thought of?

Actually, this is probably a pretty good reason why so many people seem to associate atheism with amorality: religion is so deeply ingrained in our culture that it's difficult for many people to come to terms with the idea of having none  ^*

^{for the purpose of the argument, we're going by the common, misinformed definition of atheism (no religion), rather than the actual defintion (no gods)}

@Bobby G: I actually have seen people (online) saying yes, but I'm quite certain they actually wouldn't.

@Electivirus: I've seen the same thing, which makes so little sense. Yes, the people who don't believe in an afterlife should kill themself. Obviously.

I think the logic behind what Electrivirus mentioned is "no rewards for doing good if there's no God". Granted, the existence of God doesn't equal the existence of heaven, but anyone who spends their time accusing people of being horrible based on their religious preference probably isn't going to think very many things through.

I sincerely doubt that the lack of religion would stop "religious conflicts" at all. Most (nearly all, really) of them are about non-religious things, usually a combination of money and land.

Like nearly all conflicts, really.

Yeah, but believing there's no heaven is a pretty damn good motivation to try and live for as long as possible.

I was weird about that when I was religious. I was aware that the Bible doesn't support the Fluffy Cloud Heaven scene, and I really didn't think it'd be a place hwere you could meet all those interesting historical figures.

It was actualyl quite liberating to realize that life is all there is, and we don't have to go for that really depresing afterlife.

edited 3rd Nov '09 1:52:21 PM by JethroQWalrustitty

I have the same problem Jethro, it makes no sense.

Um...

That should explain it.

edited 3rd Nov '09 2:14:43 PM by Beta Ray

There's no god?! . . . BRB, murdering.

 ^{. . .}

^{This post is purely satirical. No beings were murdered during the creation of, or as a result of, this post, to the best of the author's knowledge.}

You'd think so. But part of the "religious experience" is accepting stuff without question, on faith as it were. This includes arguments for debating 'The Athiest' ...

Broken Chaos: I have actually run into people who have that attitude. Seriously.

Really, the theists who believe atheists have no morals need to be slapped across the face.

I'm a theist and I still find that stupid.

I... really don't understand this view. I can't think of any interesting Christian philosophers (or interesting philosophers at all) who insisted on accepting things solely on blind authority.

...

edited 3rd Nov '09 3:13:22 PM by Zyxzy

No, you're often encouraged to question your faith. But there are some things you don't usually question, such as the validity of the Bible.

If this thread turns into another Zyxzy vs everyone else religious debate I'm gonna puke...

I have never yet come across someone who believes this. I suppose my family members might believe it to an extent, but I don't talk about my beliefs to them so I don't really know if they'd declare me as lacking morals if I said that I don't believe in God and see no reason why I should.

Also...I do not believe that religion requires one to blindly follow whatever they are told by their religious authority figures. That just doesn't seem to...fit. Isn't questioning of how the religion is practiced and taught part of why we have so many versions of the many religions of the world? Buddhism, if you consider it a religion, even encourages you to question the Buddha. To question and try his method.

^^That's happened before?

Then arguably everyone is a bad human being: the motivation to do something for someone (or not do it) because you view them as a person like yourself is just as self serving as doing it because you're afraid that some man in the sky is going to get you. Most people don't have empathy for cows, chickens, lambs, pigs, and such, even though these animals are demonstrably intelligent, and pigs have shown intelligence approaching dog level. Why not? Well these animals don't have funerals for their dead, these animals don't openly weep like humans, and they don't get together and form vendettas like humans do. "Empathy" is a euphemism we use for the fact that deep down, we think it's a good policy to proceed as though everyone has at LEAST a bad a temper as we do.

Author's note: I'm not religious, so I don't subscribe to the man in the sky theory. However, I do act, not out of empathy, but because of self interest. Arguably this makes me a bad person as well, and honestly, I won't argue that, as given some of the "Christian" people I've been around, I'd take me and my self interest over them and their morals any day.

There has got to be a name for this fallacy, because I see it all the time. If you don't believe in God, that may be a valid reason for you personally to value life more. That doesn't apply to everyone. Some people decide that no afterlife means do whatever to anyone here, regardless of the consequences, as tomorrow isn't promised, so why put off what you want when you may never get it.

The only real issue I have with Atheism is it's tendency to laugh at anyone who even tries to seek out a higher being or consciousness. There seems to be this idea that, if we can't see it with an electron microscope, a particle accelerator, or a double blind experiment, it can't possibly exist. This is like going back to Ancient Greece and saying that radio waves cannot possibly exist because they aren't made of earth, air, fire, or water, and you can't see them with the naked eye or touch them with your hand, so as they couldn't devise an experiment to find them, they couldn't exist and they didn't affect nature.