That is not a fact. That is a fallacy: Atheists are expected to recognize irrational beliefs. Atheists are expected to respect scientific theories. Atheists are expected to oppose religious justification of public policy. If an atheist does not think, or behave, in a manner consistent with this doctrine, we question their motives - that's a fact!
The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, whats to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didnt have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. - Penn Jillette
My answer is no, there is no standard to which atheists are supposed to conform. However, having rejected religious moralities, that leaves them open to adopting other moralities, based on other beliefs they might hold. Most atheists today embrace secular humanism which gives them morals. Thus, most atheists have morals as good as any but their source isn't atheism. Atheism just provides a lack of moral ground but nothing says they can't just get another one. One misunderstanding of this, which I hope is not common, would be that atheists lose their morality and then we just have to hope that he picks up a good morality. It is true that for instance hard core communists go through the same process but replace their morality with one provided by communism, but remember that getting a secular humanist morality is usually involved in rejecting the religious morality in the first place, especially in our day where secular humanism is more common than for instance old school communism. Rejecting any and all gods and their moralities stops you from having a religious morality but is not involved in getting you another. However, being human does and therefore most atheists obtain a morality anyway.
What do you mean? No morality in itself is based upon atheism, so it couldn't be objective or subjective. An atheist can however take other moralities, and those can be of any kind. Personally, I believe that all moralities are subjective, even that of those who claims theirs is not, so I'd have to say I think any such morality, along with any other morality, is subjective.
Something happens, when people organize and proudly defend the definition of a word, that generates a logic system. It has something to do with the social contract theory. The more notable example of this situation is the word "(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)." Black people know to react and defend the definition of the word, because it has specific meaning that they do not want to be tampered with; and atheists do the same thing with "atheism." What is unique, is that these demographic groupings accept the terms and definitions that were assigned by their oppressors.
Until it is deployed to justify the legislation of public law - then it becomes something a bit more distinguished from being subjective. Morality is usually not personal and subjective, it can be defined, and described, so others understand it, otherwise it would be a personality trait, or something like that.
Not at all. Our willingness to create and follow laws would be quite subjective. Exactly what is written in the law is objective, but whether or not it reflects morality is not.
Yes there is I would make this a four point doctrine. 1. Support science that is assume any given theory is true that is properly demonstrated until another takes its place using scientific methods. 2. Support civilized debate on matters in the commons ,public, using science and basic common sense positions. Example if one wants to marry another of the same gender is there a common sense grounding to deny it. 3. Faith by its nature needs to be challenged on its merits and flaws using the same rigors as we follow science and if its proven true must be then given ground in the commons and if not should not be allowed in the commons at the same level. Simple I cannot rule out a supernatural force overseeing things but it must be demonstrated as any hardened and tested scientific theory to be valid. 4. Faith organizations have no rights more or less than non-faith ones, in the commons. They have a right to freedom of speech but I would treat them with the same conditions for non-profits we use for secular charities to be fair including reporting and paying taxes if deemed not worthy of non-profit status.
There is no such thing as "atheist morality" because atheism is completely disconnected from moral issues.
This. Atheism simply says that one lacks belief in supernatural agencies. But so what? Morality isn't about supernatural agencies, it's about appropriate socialized behavior. It's applied values, and values come from the society. Most human morality is fairly easily analyzed by using game theory, which balances the rewards and punishments of acting either according to or against social principles and norms. And sure enough, the Golden Rule turns out to be a wonderful rule of thumb for creating a stable society encompassing both cooperation and competition. Nothing supernatural about the Golden Rule whatsoever. It's essentially practical.
I think you'll find that I use the phrasing "Our willingness to create and follow laws would be quite subjective", referring specifically to the case where morality is viewed as subjective. In a morality that is completely subjective, the morality behind following laws is subjective. Instead I would like to ask what makes you think anything happens to a morality when it is "deployed to justify the legislation of public law".
What was so moral about any of the Old Testament characters? They were all a bunch of lying, thieving, murdering homicidal maniacs and sexual perverts.
I hope I put some time into understanding this - I am pretty sure it is a flawed argument. I'm sure there will be atheists who will claim that I am making arguments that are consistent with Christian, or otherwise, theist motivation to suppress atheism, because my reasoning has done so in the past, yet I vehemently describe myself without the belief in God, and never justify my arguments with any of the religious concepts. That is not disrespecting the theory, that is challenging it. When an atheist jumps off the Empire State Building, because he thinks he can fly - that is disrespecting Einsteins theory of Evolution. Yes they do. A lot of them are classified as creationists. I support the criminal code for rape, because it violates personal rights, or something like that. I'm very confident that our laws concerning felonies are justified by reason removed from religious doctrine, and I am sure that in the future this will be even more secure. I think the list I provided is very accurate, and will be improved upon in the future to better address the problems that I just described.
The objective was/is probably to describe the situations of immorality so that it is/was recognizable. Keep in mind that, way back when, they did not have all the information about human experience and society that we have now; and they did not have the communications that we have now, and it is very difficult to manage a population of people who are less intelligent than the leaders - it was a very different world 200 years ago, and a thousand years ago. People did not live very long, and the moral stories they deployed died with them, and their were people who took advantage of the humble - it was very difficult, and atheists forget to consider that when trying to understand the whole shebang. The Bible, as flawed as we recognize it, was adequate for hundreds of years of guiding society that had a much wider margin of human error. Atheist make it sound like there is a perfect morality that is the origin of any religion, but that religious organizations were determined to exploit the weak from day one of the organization. Wise people, like myself, have been trying our best to figure out how best to manage people to approach peace on Earth and the better evolution of Mankind, is just that it has been very difficult, because of the margin of human error - mistakes are made and learned, and perpetuated. But that is coming to an end and as the margin of human error is narrowed the need for more accurate descriptions of the ultimate social contract are needed. It is very complicated stuff and your opinions, and ideas, are probably erroneous like most people's, and you will not be privileged to participate in the drafting of the more accurate social contracts that will be deployed. You commoners will only be allowed to review the final instrument(s) so you can select which state you want to live in - you are going to have to follow the rules. We have major problems to solve so we can prolong the life of humanity and the Earth and a revision of the social contract system that we live by is inevitable - don't you think?
Wrong. Imagine you were to meet someone who is big into pseudo-science, like astrology, homeopathy, etc. It's fair to say that this person has no great respect for science, and can be said to have irrational beliefs. If said person holds these beliefs while simultaneously not believing in any gods, they are, without question, an atheist.
OK, god. The Bible is actually a very complex book on so many levels. It shows the progression from barbarism to a more civilized state of society. It also shows how one man can change society, such as when Ezekiel changed the rule about children being responsible for the sins of their fathers. He introduced the idea that each person is soley responsible for his own actions. Jesus introduced the idea that people shouldn't go around stoning others when they are just as guilty as the person they are condemning. And now in modern America we have laws against every conceivable act known to man. We probably broke some today and didn't even know it.
That's pretty good, because I behold Astrology to be an underdeveloped science, needing humans to be born on another planet in order to make more accurate comparisons for more accurate descriptions of the determinism that is postulated. Irrational beliefs will be a disrespect for the social contract theory. If a person beholds irrational beliefs, how can we trust their claim of disbelief???
Trust the accuracy of the disbelief? Or trust that they aren't lying when they say then don't believe?
No point. You asked if we could "trust their claim of disbelief". I'm merely asking for clarification. Are we trusting that their (lack of) belief is true? Or are we trusting that they do actually have the (lack of) belief?
Imagine you said you believed that, say, triangles have 4 sides. I don't trust the legitimacy of the belief - triangles must have 3 sides. But I might still trust that you honestly do have that belief, however silly it might be.
