I will agree there are those who don't necessarily believe in a God, and on the same token don't necessarily not believe in God either. Those in my opinion are not the "atheists" in question and honestly I don't think they should be called atheists. Let's just call them good people. My parents were "good people". Very moral and never went to church. IMO, you won't here peep out of these good people. I am not afraid of a single religion. Not in the least because I know the roots behind it. Now if I were to start tweaking a persons faith, then I would have reason to fear. You just don't do that. With the exception of on the rare occasion when someone comes to my door wanting to share their faith, does it ever arise. I understand this. I am not threatened by it. Now if I were to go to the local Wal-Mart and approach a woman wearing a Burka and comment on how ridiculous she looks, I deserve any wrath that might ensue. It's these loud mouthed atheists I have a problem with. IMO.
william

Can you imagine a person, without a 'god' in their life, being good? Sure! (at least I hope), it happens all the time! If there's truth in this, the broad-categorization (that atheism leads to sin, immorality and wrongdoing) falls apart.

I cant say ive come across those atheists who would be so ignorant as the ones you mention. I must say your experiences have coloured your views but then certain believers i have encountered have coloured mine.Atheists come in many hues so do the faithful , debate the principles not the individuals should be our motto.

In all due respect, you have to be kidding. It has nothing to do with ignorance. It has to do with morality. When that word appears in any context, religion becomes the punching bag as if religion is the gatekeeper of all morality. It is not religion that the loud mouthed atheists are truly offended by, it's morality. This is a no brainer, IMO. Religion just gives them a target to shoot at.
William

I think you have missed the boat..Atheist in general complain that religion thinks it has the strangle hold on moralty. If ever i see anyone moaning about morals its the faithful telling atheists they have none.Would you say RCs have morals that an atheist would approve of or Muslims scriptures define good moral principles or the mormon history can be proud of it moral past and present..For every atheist in this world i would not be suprised to find a sect or faith in the same amount..to be so scathing on your attack you must include those faiths that are not tolerant and dont teach a respectable morality.

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.

"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi.

You know what gives acceptance to immorality? Collective hate and group rage such as we're seeing on this thread. Get enough people together who agree in their protestations and rational thinking goes out of the window. There's nothing more immoral than a club with a cause. It takes a group like Catholics to do something as immoral as throwing stones at children going to a Protestant school, as in Northern Ireland a few years back. Religion just gives you one more reason to attack people.

First let me apologize for my outburst. After years of observing the same back and forth dialog it truly becomes hard to take. It just seems whenever the higher values of man that "may" constitute morality, such as respect, decency, character, trust, responsibility, compassion, understanding, truth, honesty, faith enter any dialog religion enters the picture when it truly has nothing to do with those higher values.

If I am correct, what Pyth is saying many who, for whatever reason cannot abide by those higher values use religion as a scapegoat thinking if they could just wipe out religion, any semblance of morality would go with it, giving the relief they so desperately need from the guilt that torments them. IMO.

I have often wondered why they complain so much? They are protected within the law and are untouchable. Then I realized, it's simple. The reason these who make the most noise want religion and God obliterated is because on the outside chance there is a God, they won't go to hell alone.

Khethil, you said: "In fact, what I tend to see is that the considered atheist is generally quite moral since their ethos doesn't pawn off responsibility for acts (good and bad) on ethereal concepts such as 'god', fate, predestination, preordination, karma or the like. This leads the atheist to a place where they've no scapegoat on which to relieve responsibility."

Then, why make such a fuss? Why would they care? I'm sorry I think you are very wrong here. You perception of the theist "pawning" off responsibility to a higher power is IMO and immense exaggeration and one that ads fuel to the fire and offers justification for those "loud" atheists to refer to those of faith as the herd, when in actually if the truth were known their faith provides them with a respite they need to exist in this chaotic world. A world the atheist finds, in all probability, no problem with since they are going to end up spending the rest of eternity in a dark black hole anyway, or so they think. How could there be any morality in a life that ends in such a manner?

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.

Nice try. You know full well what I am talking about. Before you know it you will be including satanism, witchcraft, paganism, snake worship, in the lot. Sorry, that dog want hunt. Hell, there may be a religion out there that worships the three toed sloth too. Include them while you are at it if if makes you feel better. But you have proved my point about always loping morality and religion together. But if you would please identify to me a particular "moral" that religion seeks to force on you that you are personally offended with?
Thanks,
William

Nice try. You know full well what I am talking about. Before you know it you will be including satanism, witchcraft, paganism, snake worship, in the lot. Sorry, that dog want hunt. Hell, there may be a religion out there that worships the three toed sloth too. Include them while you are at it if if makes you feel better. But you have proved my point about always loping morality and religion together. But if you would please identify to me a particular "moral" that religion seeks to force on you that you are personally offended with?
Thanks,
William

Atheism is a fad, a fashion or a social and cultural movement that took root in the Western world (formerly known as Christiandom) at a certain time (beginning especially in the late 19th Century).

Confucianists and Buddhists are atheistic, and it can be argued that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all atheistic.

By the way, it's also not original for a theist to accuse doubters of innate immorality.

The problem lies in the difference between a non-theist and a political activist. It is a category mistake.

Pythagorean especified recently what he wanted to mean with atheists on this thread, but Aedes took the word with the meaning that it usually means, rather than the meaning Pythagorean had given it.

To believe in the supernatural is to lie to oneself about what little they know or better yet are willing to learn.

For all of the millions of deities that man has created what has it accomplished?
War, hate and ignorance to knowledge?

Pyth,

It seems you're taking a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of atheists and making a point that is only generalizable to what you have in mind.

If you're going to define atheists as something other than disbelief in a deity, then we don't have our terminology straight and you're running the risk of bleeding your critique of "atheists" over into other definitions. I suggest you choose a new word.

Irrespective of era, irrespective of culture, atheism has existed since antiquity.

And even if a subset of modern western atheism (which honestly traces itself back to Hume and to utilitarianism) does meet the description in your thesis, you provide ZERO evidence that your conclusions are generalizable.

Furthermore, you fail to acknowledge that people generally develop their moral character LONG before they finalize their beliefs. Beliefs are trendy, but good people and bad people declare themselves as such much earlier.

Finally, please answer me this question in a simple yes / no way:

Is it possible that a self-conscious atheist can be a truly good person?

The real mistake is to assume that coincidental views about a) God and b) political issue x are somehow causal, rather than statistically both likely.

In other words, atheists are more likely to be pro-choice and theists more likely to be pro-life. But that doesn't mean that one position leads to the other. All it means is that the way a person evaluates the world very likely independently leads to common conclusions.

And rightly so. If philosophical discourse is contingent upon the consistency of language, then it's a logical sham to go redefining words on your own. It allows you to make up the rules as you go along. That's not how logic works.