Is Atheism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behaviour?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Is Atheism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behaviour?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 06:14 pm
[CENTER]Is Atheism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behaviour? [/CENTER]


Is the atheism of modern, Western people just an excuse for them to get away with acting in ways that are immoral?

What I'm suggesting is that a great bulk of the Western individuals who claim to be atheists have NOT arrived at the position of atheism as the natural result of theological inquiry; but rather that they have arrived at their atheism because it is the position that excuses the kind of behviour that under any other circumstances would be considered as bad conduct (behaviour such as supporting Democratic Socialism as a form of government, which removes responsibility from the level of the individual and allows for an encroaching despotism from the rule of the few within big, oversized or Super-sized, government).

So atheism is embraced merely because it gives these individuals freedom from the constraints that any normal society would naturally place upon the individual. The embrace of atheism and despotic Democratic Socialism gives the individual an incredible amount of freedom (if by freedom we include the wanton rage of unconscious desire and appetite). But this freedom under immoral socialism is done for private pleasure as opposed to theological or philosophical conviction. It is private pleasure masquerading as a human right, the thrall of food and sex and money as true freedom in the midst of government encroachment and shrinking responsibilities of the individual.


It is this political component that seems to be the key for me. I ask myself: why would an atheist need to fight against Christianity or be political at all? Why can't they be silent atheists? And the answer is that their atheism is political because its purpose is to give them immunity for what could be universally recognized as bad or immoral behaviour. Atheism is about immoral behaviour NOT about the possibility of theology.

--Pyth
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 06:21 pm
@Pythagorean,
I see three massive flaws in your argument.

1. You judge the morality of atheist behaviour on the basis of religious dogma.
2. You believe atheists 'arrive' at atheism. They don't - they are born like that.
3. No evidence for any notable difference between the morality of 'silent atheists' and 'anti-Christian' or 'political atheists' that backs up this distinction.
 
Pusyphus
 
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 06:30 pm
@Pythagorean,
Hmm, interesting claim. You make some good points, Pyth. However...

Within the group of atheists, there are what you could call antitheists. These are not necessarily devil-worshippers or satanists. These are everyday people like you and me, who may have very-well given theism a fair shake. To antitheists, there is simply and sadly not enough to work with, from any god. Even if some god has given an antitheist life in a roundabout way, that is not nearly enough to keep them from giving criticism where criticism is due. This has little to do with any desire to cross humanity.

In some religions, like christianity, the promises that god makes (in exchange for anything, really) are quite pathetic. It is not the people that make these promises, so you can't really blame them. A fair god would understand that that its proposal could easily be taken as a scam. That leaves the responsible person with no real choice but to reject god altogether. Let god come back, when he makes more sense...
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 06:41 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
I see three massive flaws in your argument.

1. You judge the morality of atheist behaviour on the basis of religious dogma.
2. You believe atheists 'arrive' at atheism. They don't - they are born like that.
3. No evidence for any notable difference between the morality of 'silent atheists' and 'anti-Christian' or 'political atheists' that backs up this distinction.



1. I do not judge the morality of atheist behviour on the basis of religious dogma. Morality is discoverable within the history of humanity. Normative morality makes itself evident on the basis of societies and political groups who have lived throughout history. I don't know the bible but I can usually tell right from wrong. Furthermore I take it as an admition of guilt on your part, that you recognize the phenomena of immorality that atheists generally embrace.

2. I don't see how one can be born an atheist. Plenty of people who were born into Christianity have later changed their position.

Quote:
3. No evidence for any notable difference between the morality of 'silent atheists' and 'anti-Christian' or 'political atheists' that backs up this distinction.


3. The difference between political, revolutionary atheists and silent atheists is the fact that the one is political and the other is indifferent. The hypothetical 'silent atheist' arrives at his position through theological investigation while the political atheist is an activist who does not see the need for an actual investigation into whether or not there is a God.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 07:05 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
1. I do not judge the morality of atheist behviour on the basis of religious dogma. Morality is discoverable within the history of humanity. Normative morality makes itself evident on the basis of societies and political groups who have lived throughout history. I don't know the bible but I can usually tell right from wrong. Furthermore I take it as an admition of guilt on your part, that you recognize the phenomena of immorality that atheists generally embrace.

Your citing the 'thrall of sex' makes it pretty clear you DO judge within that basis. I certainly embrace that thrall as often as I can.

Pythagorean wrote:

2. I don't see how one can be born an atheist. Plenty of people who were born into Christianity have later changed their position.

I didn't say 'born into'. I said 'born'. As people, we are not born worshipping Christ. We have to be taught (or indoctrinated) to do that.

Pythagorean wrote:

3. The difference between political, revolutionary atheists and silent atheists is the fact that the one is political and the other is indifferent. The hypothetical 'silent atheist' arrives at his position through theological investigation while the political atheist is an activist who does not see the need for an actual investigation into whether or not there is a God.

I never understand why religious people have such a hard time understanding the fact that atheists generally have not reached atheism as a conclusion to some theological consideration. For all the atheists I know, myself included, faith is a non-issue that can, always has been and probably always will be ignored. Have you reached the conclusion that your mind isn't being controlled by little invisible people called Dorangs living in each of your brain cells after some extensive Dorangian investigation? Will you now I've brought it up? Or for a less jokey example, try scientology (less jokey, but not much). For a lot of atheists theology, scientology and Dorangy are equivilent in terms of worthwhile pursuits.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 07:26 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
Your citing the 'thrall of sex' makes it pretty clear you DO judge within that basis. I certainly embrace that thrall as often as I can.


Why would you call me a liar. You are being unfair. I urge you to keep the tone a little higher. The overemphasis upon human sexuality usually takes place within historically decadent epochs. This is a simple observation without any metaphysical or theological presuppositions.

Bones-O! wrote:

I didn't say 'born into'. I said 'born'. As people, we are not born worshipping Christ. We have to be taught (or indoctrinated) to do that.
As I said, I don't see how people can be born atheists. What is the scientific basis of such a claim?

Bones-O! wrote:
I never understand why religious people have such a hard time understanding the fact that atheists generally have not reached atheism as a conclusion to some theological consideration. For all the atheists I know, myself included, faith is a non-issue that can, always has been and probably always will be ignored. Have you reached the conclusion that your mind isn't being controlled by little invisible people called Dorangs living in each of your brain cells after some extensive Dorangian investigation? Will you now I've brought it up? Or for a less jokey example, try scientology (less jokey, but not much). For a lot of atheists theology, scientology and Dorangy are equivilent in terms of worthwhile pursuits.
You didn't read my post carefullly enough. We know that atheists don't reach their conclusion upon the basis of theological inquiry, I've already said this. In fact, that was my main point. Atheism is a pollitical tool for decadent behaviour that doesn't have to understand itself.

--
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 07:40 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pusyphus,

I am not saying that there aren't some atheists who have genuinely studied the matter and have fairly come to the conclusion that there is not God. These I have respectfully called 'silent atheists'. I am speaking here rather of those who hide their political and social support for basic immorality under the label of atheism. They use atheism as a kind of "get-out-of-responsibility-for-free" card. As long as Christianity is an evil in their minds they can do anything they please, there is no lowest point of human depravity for them.
 
Joe
 
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 07:56 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
Pusyphus,

I am not saying that there aren't some atheists who have genuinely studied the matter and have fairly come to the conclusion that there is not God. These I have respectfully called 'silent atheists'. I am speaking here rather of those who hide their political and social support for basic immorality under the label of atheism. They use atheism as a kind of "get-out-of-responsibility-for-free" card. As long as Christianity is an evil in their minds they can do anything they please, there is no lowest point of human depravity for them.


wow........

So I guess I have to ask, if your saying that atheism can be a scape goat. If so, of course. Anything can be used for negativity. So, are you implying that atheism is generally negative?


Also I would like to state for the philosophy forum record that I am not an atheist. I believe in no religion. I believe in no spiritual structure. Besides myself.

Signed __Joe_______:lol:
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 08:41 pm
@Joe,
Joe wrote:
wow........

So I guess I have to ask, if your saying that atheism can be a scape goat. If so, of course. Anything can be used for negativity. So, are you implying that atheism is generally negative?


Also I would like to state for the philosophy forum record that I am not an atheist. I believe in no religion. I believe in no spiritual structure. Besides myself.


No, Joe. Atheism in itself is not negative. It is the immorality on a large scale, it is immorality of atheism as a political doctrine that is negative.

You have to take stock of what is happening within the Western world in our very own times in order to make the connection between this type of unexamined atheism and the encroaching despotism. It lies in the allowance given by the encroaching socialist government to the people to commit themselves to gluttony, greed and sexual license and general immorality in order to remove individual responsibility resulting in an ever increasing power of government over the individual -

Political atheism is never really true atheism or true scepticism, it is rather a device that totalitarian governments and their fellow travellers use to control people.

Simply stated, moral people would never have allowed their government to grow to this size. They even call their own enslavement a 'human right'!


--Pyth
 
Pusyphus
 
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 09:03 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
Pusyphus,

I am not saying that there aren't some atheists who have genuinely studied the matter and have fairly come to the conclusion that there is not God. These I have respectfully called 'silent atheists'. I am speaking here rather of those who hide their political and social support for basic immorality under the label of atheism. They use atheism as a kind of "get-out-of-responsibility-for-free" card. As long as Christianity is an evil in their minds they can do anything they please, there is no lowest point of human depravity for them.


No, there is one notch lower, I'm afraid. That is using the flag of one god, to go and sodomize another country waving a different flag of the same cowardly god, in the name of justice.

So, what's wrong with some good ol' fashioned depravity? It beats shady behavior under god by a mile.

Just so you know, these anti-theists I mentioned, they have studied the situation, and have concluded that there is indeed a god. They just recognize that the god must be trash, and that the god's believers are zombies who have sold out on humanity.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 09:36 pm
@Pusyphus,
Pusyphus wrote:
No, there is one notch lower, I'm afraid. That is using the flag of one god, to go and sodomize another country waving a different flag of the same cowardly god, in the name of justice.

So, what's wrong with some good ol' fashioned depravity? It beats shady behavior under god by a mile.

Just so you know, these anti-theists I mentioned, they have studied the situation, and have concluded that there is indeed a god. They just recognize that the god must be trash, and that the god's believers are zombies who have sold out on humanity.


When I mentioned the depravity of the political atheist I was speaking specifically of the resulting loss of his own liberty due to his embrace of immoral behaviour and attitudes. It is the immoral behaviour and attitudes that as far as I can honestly see there is no bottom to. I believe that the lower the social morality the greater the loss of liberty.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a genuine atheist, nor is there anything wrong with being anti-theist, in my opinion.

One reason for the Iraq war has to do with the immense size of the American government. With the size of our government being so enormous it is inevitable that something like the Iraq war took place. And with no sign of the government shrinking anytime soon, I would predict other such ventures on the part of the government in future. These types of activities are not conducive to domestic liberty and they are facilitated by the same old fashioned depravity at home.

So, when I say there is no bottom to the depravity of the political atheist I am speaking of the appetites and the unconscious desires which lead us into such servitude and which inevitably lead us to such irrational ventures overseas.

Still I maintain, it is the call of the political atheist which gives cover to the embrace of immoral behaviour and attitudes. And it is not that these immoral attitudes are monstrous in themselves (they are rather petty and pathetic), it is the fact that they lead to enslavement to an overgrown government. The Iraq war should not be a call to more immorality and perversity of the individual appetites, it should be a warning that the individual has lost his standing as a responsible political agent.

--Pyth
 
Pusyphus
 
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 12:24 am
@Pythagorean,
Well, I would agree. Don't be surprised if we continue to go to war with others countries.

So, if we are losing our standing as political agents, what do you suggest?
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 07:47 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
Why would you call me a liar. You are being unfair. I urge you to keep the tone a little higher. The overemphasis upon human sexuality usually takes place within historically decadent epochs. This is a simple observation without any metaphysical or theological presuppositions.

Saying you're mistaken is not the same as saying you're a liar. Don't be so sensitive. If you can't take criticism, why give your views publicly?

There is nothing unfair in what I said; I merely gave an illustration of my point using a subject you brought up. If you don't believe sexuality uninhibited by religious dogma to be immoral, don't cite it as evidence for atheist immorality. If you do believe it to be immoral, it is a perfect illustration of my point. Your deeming it immoral is a consequence of your theism, thus your argument is circular. Even your protestation that I'm lowering the tone is religious prudishness.

Pythagorean wrote:

As I said, I don't see how people can be born atheists. What is the scientific basis of such a claim?

I'm not sure it needs one. But if we are born with a religious belief, which one? For which religion? Why didn't Christianity spontaneous arise in east Asia 2000 years ago? Why didn't buddhism spontaneously arise here? If we are born theists then our theism cannot depend on where and when we are born.

Pythagorean wrote:

You didn't read my post carefullly enough. We know that atheists don't reach their conclusion upon the basis of theological inquiry, I've already said this. In fact, that was my main point. Atheism is a pollitical tool for decadent behaviour that doesn't have to understand itself.
--

True, my apologies. But you're not being rigorous at all. You admit some kind of 'silent atheist' could exist, but then insist that all atheists are not of this kind. Why do all atheists have to be political?
 
hammersklavier
 
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 08:01 am
@Pythagorean,
Anything can be used to rationalize immoral behavior. Remember the Crusades were started by the Christians and Islam started and grew in a bloodbath!

The problem is with the nature of free will: in order to accept that you have complete freedom for your actions, you must simultaneously accept that you have complete control over their consequences, either for good or for ill. While atheism arrived at after serious theological inquiry, such as Hume's, is all well and good, the atheism--or religion--in governments that basically says "we are not responsible for our actions" is a rationalization of the governmental inhibition of free will. When these governments are democratically elected, this implies that the national populace is losing the moral clarity to understand they cause their own consequences.

That is, atheism in government is no different than excessive religion in government: by nationally espousing a certain set of moral standards (and remember that what may be considered immoral by one morality may be moral in another) the aforesaid government renders its populace in thrall to those opinions, and thus undermines the realization that our actions cause consequences, which undermines and inhibits free will.
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 08:02 am
@Bones-O,
I feel the argument against atheists is that when they sin they do it without the fear of eternal hell but when the faithful sin they know they are going to burn..The opposite could be said when atheists do good they do it for its own sake, the faithful have salvation and heaven.......Whats this political animal the" political atheists" have i over slept? who created them?
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 09:17 am
@Pythagorean,
So let me get this straight:
Atheists cannot be silent atheists, therefore all atheists are political atheists.
Political atheists are limitlessly depraved.
The depravity of political atheists consists of their appetites and unconscious desires.
Democratic socialist government permits greed, gluttony, sexual license and general immorality.
Political atheism gives rise to Democratic Socialism.
-> The appetites and unconscious desires of all atheists are greed, gluttony, sexual license and general immorality.
Democratic Socialism is despotic and totalitarian.
-> Atheists have no liberties.
Removal of liberties leads to oversized government (whatever that means).
Oversized government leads to overseas conflicts.

Is that roughly correct?
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 09:18 am
@Pusyphus,
Pusyphus wrote:
Well, I would agree. Don't be surprised if we continue to go to war with others countries.

So, if we are losing our standing as political agents, what do you suggest?


There are so many ways to start and so many different areas to work with. However, I don't believe that ultimately we can prevent the demise of the Western world. I see we are slowly descending into third world status in America (shrinking middle class, growing poor at the bottom, and super rich at the top).

The one thing I would suggest is that we attempt to shrink the size of government in order to arrest the decline. But this, as you may know, would be a difficult task with many obstacles.

What we can do as thinkers and knowledge seekers is to continuously discuss the matter and not forget the path that we are on, and to understand why we are where we are. Try to keep ourselves whole while the whole world around us seems to be losing its collective mind as we careen out of control here.

-
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 09:41 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
There are so many ways to start and so many different areas to work with. However, I don't believe that ultimately we can prevent the demise of the Western world. I see we are slowly descending into third world status in America (shrinking middle class, growing poor at the bottom, and super rich at the top).

The one thing I would suggest is that we attempt to shrink the size of government in order to arrest the decline. But this, as you may know, would be a difficult task with many obstacles.

What we can do as thinkers and knowledge seekers is to continuously discuss the matter and not forget the path that we are on, and to understand why we are where we are. Try to keep ourselves whole while the whole world around us seems to be losing its collective mind as we careen out of control here.

-
Why dont we exterminate the atheist politicians with no morals and leave the religious politicians like Bush, what a wonderful world we would have..
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 09:43 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
I feel the argument against atheists is that when they sin they do it without the fear of eternal hell but when the faithful sin they know they are going to burn..The opposite could be said when atheists do good they do it for its own sake, the faithful have salvation and heaven.......Whats this political animal the" political atheists" have i over slept? who created them?


Hi, Xris! I am glad somebody is getting some sleep lol Smile

When I talk about political atheists I am referring to the non-theological, hence political activists who see atheism as a kind of political "cause". Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are two examples of political atheists who have had best selling books in the past few years.

xris wrote:
Why dont we exterminate the atheist politicians with no morals and leave the religious politicians like Bush, what a wonderful world we would have..


But my point is that one does not have to be Christian in order to understand what human immorality looks like. Plato and Aristotle, for example, were not Christian yet they were highly ethical.

Of course, Christians can act immorally just like any other humans or group of humans.

--
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 09:50 am
@xris,
Pythagorean wrote:
But my point is that one does not have to be Christian in order to understand what human immorality looks like. Plato and Aristotle, for example, were not Christian yet they were highly ethical.

Of course, Christians can act immorally just like any other humans or group of humans.

--
But why blame the woes on these sinners alone..I think religious fundamentalists deserve more attention to extermination than handful of vehement atheists.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Is Atheism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behaviour?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/28/2020 at 05:29:58