Agnostic.com

10 4

Atheism for both supporters and critics is an intensely moral issue. It is not just a matter of the facts (does God exist or not?) - It is rather whether morally we should believe in God or the gods. Each side not only thinks that the other side is deluded or misguided, but morally flawed.

Morality in general is about the question "Is X the right thing to do?"
A lot of believers think that atheism is immoral because nonbelievers refuse to accept revelation (thereby committing the sin of "superbia" ), which is tantamount to insulting God. Atheists - at least the activist variety - think that it is morally wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence.

Matias 8 Aug 8
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

10 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Morality and ethics are culturally defined. They are also subject to metamorphosis depending upon the changing intrinsic values within the culture that they are embedded.

0

i guess i don't have an opinion on the post because i don't think this a moral issue. although i think one informs the other regardless of how true the belief. pretty sure religious people are misinformed that you need belief to be moral. maybe you need to believe what they believe to be moral by their standards, but that is the rub. not my standards.

the reason for the response is another question that has gotten me for a long time. "A lot of believers think that atheism is immoral because nonbelievers refuse to accept revelation (thereby committing the sin of "superbia" ), which is tantamount to insulting God."

how? i am amazed constantly by believers being offended by my lack of belief. at least the christian versions. how is it possible to offend an omniscient entity? their definition.

i usually have two responses for them but it doesn't help with why they think it: first, it is not possible as the entity does not exist 😉 . second, it is not their god offended but the individual believer. their god knows what i (or anyone really) have thought, currently think, will think, have said, and will say.

if that entity is offended, surely the omnipotent 'it' has the power to act? again their definition. surely it has not instructed the believer to be offended (you'll remember it doesn't exist.) they take that up all on their own. if it has not acted or reacted in any way, how can we consider it offended?

0

We must grow up and put aside our outdated notions of morality. There is no "divine spark" granting special value to a living mind. No object has any intrinsic value apart from what we choose to grant it. Let us embrace the freedom of certitude, and achieve maximum efficiency in all things!

@Matias Maybe, maybe not. But this is the end conclusion of humanist thinking. For example, humanists believe that we need to protect the environment and do as much as possible to make peoples lives long and happy. We believe that those things only have value because we chose to assign that value to them. Spiritual thinking would argue that Human > Tree > sand because they have actual value from creation. Humanist thinking argues these things exist purely by chance thanks to the physics of the universe, and have value based on their pragmatic function.

The place where I take it to far is to view people as part of the environment, subject to the laws of physics and fundamentally "knowable".

0

Not believing is "IMmoral"? What the hell are you trying to say?

3

It is certainly true that religious organizations spend enormous efforts in trying to persuade people to behave in ways that benefit society. That almost seems to be their reason for existence. If the option is between murder, robbery, fraud, etc. on one hand and religion on the other, then I’d vote for religion every time.

I think that the person who has thought deeply and decided to turn away from religion is likely the kind of person with the courage, intelligence and insight to chart her own course. She has graduated from church.

To each his own.

2

I am an atheist, but I do not consider it immoral to be religious -- merely puzzling.

1

Choosing to delude oneself with the ‘choice’ to believe in something for which there is no proof or tangible evidence is no ‘choice’ for this Atheist. Nothing ‘moral’ beyond honesty ~

Varn Level 8 Aug 8, 2019
1

I don’t believe that atheism has anything to do with morality. Morality is inherent in humans ...we know instinctively what is right and what is wrong, and this applies equally to us whether or not we believe in God or the gods. The only difference between being atheist and being religious in the respect of morality, is that the religious tend to the view that their morality is god given, guided by their belief in god, and therefore some may believe that those of us who espouse no religion are without morals. I don’t believe that all believers believe this, they know that we are just as moral as they are, but they believe it is because we follow the Christian example, as it’s the societal norm in western countries. That is where we differ from them, because we believe that it is an inherent human quality, and that is evidenced by those civilisations which existed and produced philosophers who wrote extensively on moral matters long before the Abrahamic religions came to dominate the world.

@Matias I don’t really agree with everything that Dawkins and his ilk believe or espouse. I formed my own opinions on morality and the human condition long before I ever heard of Dawkins. I fear he is becoming as militant in his non-belief as any fervent religious proselytiser.

@Matias So now at least I have some idea where you are coming from. Dawkins' ideas about believers and the intolerant Christians' ideas about atheists do exacerbate the debate because of the assertion of moral absolute value to un/belief. But as I've said elsewhere, those two camps are not at all representative of their respective faith positions. Moreover, I don't find it helpful to lend support to the extremes by asserting that they are right to consider it an issue of morality. It isn't; they are making it into one, and that makes living with one another more difficult.

@Matias But is it actually a moral question just bc there are those on both sides who frame it that way? Does their mere framing it as a moral question make your point - the simple fact that they do so, which no-one would dispute - , or is it necessary for your point that they also be correct in that argument that it is a moral issue? You've received a lot of pushback on this post bc folks think you're saying that the moral framing of the debate is correct, not merely that that is what is happening.

3

While many Christians believe that atheists must be immoral, many Christians don't make that assumption, and an even smaller share of atheists believe that Christians are inherently immoral by their very nature. So, no, I don't think you've posed the issue correctly.

For belief or unbelief to be a moral question, it would have to mean that someone is hurt. So if God exists and I don't believe, has my unbelief harmed God or humans or other creatures? And if God doesn't exist and I do believe, has my belief by itself harmed other humans or creatures? Now I admit that belief or unbelief can also motivate bigotry, which is immoral, but those aren't a sole necessary function of mere belief or unbelief.

@Matias Although Haidt currently enjoys much support in the field, his ideas have been criticized for their redundancy of categories and for their evolutionary implausibility. I am no student of the field, but I agree with his critics. The other 5 categories can all be subsumed under the issue of intentional harm; certainly that is the broad sense of "harm" that I meant in my reply above. [journals.sagepub.com]

2

Yes - to each the 'truth' is so obvious.

Of course, to us atheists, it's not only obvious, but CORRECT... 😊

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:385632
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.