Atheism and Ethics

S

Scientist

Verified User
This topic heading is quite broad so I'm going to just start this off without a huge thesis and encourage participants to expand the discussion as they personally see fit. Let it wander within the limits of the thread title.

So, the subject of the relationship of atheism and religion with ethics has changed in recent years as the social climate has changed in the USA, much of this is due to demographics changes and class changes where former minority cultures are replacing what has traditionally been in place for a long time. One could argue that the entire purpose of Judeo-Christian religions is to instill a sense of ethics in people. Those ethics and social traditions are what most of us in America are accustomed to. Now you have islamic ethics pushing to challenge those American values as immigrants continue to pour in from those respective countries. And then you have atheism and its associated acts such as satanism and brutal skepticism, which isnt a religion, but a culture in itself, also jumping in to challenge the Judeo-Christian religion, throwing their own spin on what is ethical and not ethical.

The problem here is a single culprit in satanism as it embodies using the enemies of Christianity to strengthen its attack and since satanists call themselves atheists and usually hide their satanic affiliations they cause many problems that arise from their lack of ethics and lack of lawfulness for the scientific and skeptical atheists whom although might not be religious continue to live in an ethical and lawful manner. This damages the reputation of the true atheists that live honorable lives and dont spend their time devising ways to challenge and attack the religions that surround them.

So, a question of ethics regarding atheists should now, due to the current social climate and the explosion of satanism, should now always come with a pretext of "no-satanist atheists" so as not to muddle the blame around and make the true skeptic, the true atheist, the true scientist the fall guy and scapegoat for the costumed crusaders out there.

This was a subject matter I have been wanting to discuss for some time now. Any further comments or ideas here?
 
Scientist said:
This topic heading is quite broad so I'm going to just start this off without a huge thesis and encourage participants to expand the discussion as they personally see fit. Let it wander within the limits of the thread title.

So, the subject of the relationship of atheism and religion with ethics has changed in recent years as the social climate has changed in the USA, much of this is due to demographics changes and class changes where former minority cultures are replacing what has traditionally been in place for a long time. One could argue that the entire purpose of Judeo-Christian religions is to instill a sense of ethics in people. Those ethics and social traditions are what most of us in America are accustomed to. Now you have islamic ethics pushing to challenge those American values as immigrants continue to pour in from those respective countries. And then you have atheism and its associated acts such as satanism and brutal skepticism, which isnt a religion, but a culture in itself, also jumping in to challenge the Judeo-Christian religion, throwing their own spin on what is ethical and not ethical.

The problem here is a single culprit in satanism as it embodies using the enemies of Christianity to strengthen its attack and since satanists call themselves atheists and usually hide their satanic affiliations they cause many problems that arise from their lack of ethics and lack of lawfulness for the scientific and skeptical atheists whom although might not be religious continue to live in an ethical and lawful manner. This damages the reputation of the true atheists that live honorable lives and dont spend their time devising ways to challenge and attack the religions that surround them.

So, a question of ethics regarding atheists should now, due to the current social climate and the explosion of satanism, should now always come with a pretext of "no-satanist atheists" so as not to muddle the blame around and make the true skeptic, the true atheist, the true scientist the fall guy and scapegoat for the costumed crusaders out there.

This was a subject matter I have been wanting to discuss for some time now. Any further comments or ideas here?
Click to expand...

Ethics has nothing to do with Religion, nor Atheism.

If you think "demographics changes" have anything to do with ethics changing then it's you who needs to explain some more, not the rest of us.
 
Another thing I would like to mention is there isnt a doctrine of atheism, theres nothing to learn, nothing to memorize, no figurehead to look up to. Atheism isn't a practice and requires no emotional or intellectual investment. It's a simple truth in the life of the atheist that they acknowledge that they dont believe in God. There is nothing further beyond that. Anybody can be an atheist. There is no requirement to fulfill. No action needed.
 
Scientist said:
Another thing I would like to mention is there isnt a doctrine of atheism, theres nothing to learn, nothing to memorize, no figurehead to look up to. Atheism isn't a practice and requires no emotional or intellectual investment. It's a simple truth in the life of the atheist that they acknowledge that they dont believe in God. There is nothing further beyond that. Anybody can be an atheist. There is no requirement to fulfill. No action needed.
Click to expand...

Great.Awesome. Now explain why you think the demographics changes mean anything.

I already know what the fuck you are.
 
Scientist said:
Another thing I would like to mention is there isnt a doctrine of atheism, theres nothing to learn, nothing to memorize, no figurehead to look up to. Atheism isn't a practice and requires no emotional or intellectual investment. It's a simple truth in the life of the atheist that they acknowledge that they dont believe in God. There is nothing further beyond that. Anybody can be an atheist. There is no requirement to fulfill. No action needed.
Click to expand...

There isn't really much you have to do to be religious either. As far as things go for my religiousness, I feel I have even less weight or things I need to do. Why ever be an atheist anyway? That's going above and beyond, giving it a title and decrying religiousness. I'd say the only people who fit under what your definition are those with no needed title religious or atheist, that are just going about life.
 
Crocodile said:
There isn't really much you have to do to be religious either. As far as things go for my religiousness, I feel I have even less weight or things I need to do. Why ever be an atheist anyway? That's going above and beyond, giving it a title and decrying religiousness. I'd say the only people who fit under what your definition are those with no needed title religious or atheist, that are just going about life.
Click to expand...

Well said.

When a Christian (generally) asks you if you believe in God and you say no, they think you're an atheist.

It's weird how it works.
 
AProudLefty said:
Well said.

When a Christian (generally) asks you if you believe in God and you say no, they think you're an atheist.

It's weird how it works.
Click to expand...

When someone has to say they are an Atheist it normally has an intent, otherwise, that title is pointless. The real term is non-religious as being an atheist is still throwing your hat in the ring on who or who isn't God or Gods. I use to be that way. Had no qualms either way, just living my life. Of course, that is often how many youths live
 
Crocodile said:
When someone has to say they are an Atheist it normally has an intent, otherwise, that title is pointless. The real term is non-religious as being an atheist is still throwing your hat in the ring on who or who isn't God or Gods. I use to be that way. Had no qualms either way, just living my life. Of course, that is often how many youths live
Click to expand...

Actually the term "atheism" is a reactionary term.

Without theism, there wouldn't be atheism.
 
AProudLefty said:
Well said.

When a Christian (generally) asks you if you believe in God and you say no, they think you're an atheist.

It's weird how it works.
Click to expand...

In general Xtians who have inquired about my beliefs ask about Jesus, rather than God. You're right though; if you say no they then assume that you are an atheist, and must be made to see the same light they see.

I noticed that the OP seems to have a lot of misunderstandings about Satanists. I've only known a few of them. They don't pretend to be atheists; they are quite outspoken about their chosen path. It is not evil per se, but it tends to be a path of selfishness and me-first-everyone-else-second. Granted that's how most humans operate, so maybe they're just more honest than the rest of us? lol
 
Scientist said:
Another thing I would like to mention is there isnt a doctrine of atheism, theres nothing to learn, nothing to memorize, no figurehead to look up to. Atheism isn't a practice and requires no emotional or intellectual investment. It's a simple truth in the life of the atheist that they acknowledge that they dont believe in God. There is nothing further beyond that. Anybody can be an atheist. There is no requirement to fulfill. No action needed.
Click to expand...

That's pretty accurate.

You must have some misunderstanding about Satanists and Satanism. They don't pretend to be atheists. They are quite outspoken about the path they chose. I haven't noticed that the ones I've known in real life lack morality any more than other ppl do. Why do you think that they do?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
In general Xtians who have inquired about my beliefs ask about Jesus, rather than God. You're right though; if you say no they then assume that you are an atheist, and must be made to see the same light they see.

I noticed that the OP seems to have a lot of misunderstandings about Satanists. I've only known a few of them. They don't pretend to be atheists; they are quite outspoken about their chosen path. It is not evil per se, but it tends to be a path of selfishness and me-first-everyone-else-second. Granted that's how most humans operate, so maybe they're just more honest than the rest of us? lol
Click to expand...

I am a spiritual atheist, if that even makes any sense.

I just googled and found this wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_but_not_religious

Not exactly what I am trying to convey but there you go.
 
Scientist said:
Another thing I would like to mention is there isnt a doctrine of atheism, theres nothing to learn, nothing to memorize, no figurehead to look up to. Atheism isn't a practice and requires no emotional or intellectual investment. It's a simple truth in the life of the atheist that they acknowledge that they dont believe in God. There is nothing further beyond that. Anybody can be an atheist. There is no requirement to fulfill. No action needed.
Click to expand...

EVERY ATHEIST I have ever known...or known about...has one more qualification for their "atheism."

It is the BELIEF either that there are no gods...or the BELIEF that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

The question of whether religious BELIEFS influence ethics is a worthless one. The question of what an atheist actually is...is not.

I do not "believe" there are any gods. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

I also do not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

An ATHEIST is someone who labels him/herself an atheist. I suggest that EVERY person who labels him/herself to be an atheist...does so because of "belief"...either the "belief" that there are no gods or the "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
 
Guille said:
Ethics has nothing to do with Religion, nor Atheism.
Click to expand...

I cannot totally agree with that statement........moral standards (distinction is necessary here, because "ethics" is simply the scientific study of morality) are individually held......each person must decide what they believe to be right and wrong........however, when an individual joins a social group they tend to adopt the same moral standards that they identify among others in that group........religions are the most obvious example of that......
 
Frank Apisa said:
EVERY ATHEIST I have ever known...or known about...has one more qualification for their "atheism."

It is the BELIEF either that there are no gods...or the BELIEF that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

The question of whether religious BELIEFS influence ethics is a worthless one. The question of what an atheist actually is...is not.

I do not "believe" there are any gods. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

I also do not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

An ATHEIST is someone who labels him/herself an atheist. I suggest that EVERY person who labels him/herself to be an atheist...does so because of "belief"...either the "belief" that there are no gods or the "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Click to expand...

a very clear admission that atheism is nothing more than a faith choice.......like any other religion.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I cannot totally agree with that statement........moral standards (distinction is necessary here, because "ethics" is simply the scientific study of morality) are individually held......each person must decide what they believe to be right and wrong........however, when an individual joins a social group they tend to adopt the same moral standards that they identify among others in that group........religions are the most obvious example of that......
Click to expand...

Moral standards are mostly social, certainly, and they've often been derived from religions, but the practice of societies often goes totally against the tenets of the originating religion - Americans, for instance, seem mostly to have gone there to make money, and to care much, much more for that than traditional - let alone scriptural - Christian values. In our Seventeenth Century various 'religious'
beliefs were the means by which very deep social, political and moral divisions emerged. As lot of the present argument tends to date back to people's (particularly Marx's) reaction to the way religion was used to support some very nasty regimes in Europe , partly as a psychological enforcer, partly as a pain reliever (that's what opium was used for mainly back then, which is why it was 'the opium of the people'). Ethics, I think, is a sort of rarified philosophic version of morals, so I leave that alone. My English teacher at school used to tell us that philosophy was a study for old men, and I evidently haven't got there yet. I think that in our sorts of society morals tend to reveal the deep tug-of-war between a person's own interests and what keeps any sort of society functioning.
 
Last edited:
Scientist said:
Another thing I would like to mention is there isnt a doctrine of atheism, theres nothing to learn, nothing to memorize, no figurehead to look up to. Atheism isn't a practice and requires no emotional or intellectual investment. It's a simple truth in the life of the atheist that they acknowledge that they dont believe in God. There is nothing further beyond that. Anybody can be an atheist. There is no requirement to fulfill. No action needed.
Click to expand...

Atheism seems to me to be like a terrorist organization.

It's unofficial, there are no uniform identifiers, there is no unifying dogma, anyone can drift in and out as circumstances dictate by making a bald statement of non-belief, and the non-believer can disavow any embarrassing excesses by disavowal; i.e., "that's not real atheism". The practitioners can melt into the general population to avoid taking responsibility as the need arises.
 
Scientist said:
This topic heading is quite broad so I'm going to just start this off without a huge thesis and encourage participants to expand the discussion as they personally see fit. Let it wander within the limits of the thread title.

So, the subject of the relationship of atheism and religion with ethics has changed in recent years as the social climate has changed in the USA, much of this is due to demographics changes and class changes where former minority cultures are replacing what has traditionally been in place for a long time. One could argue that the entire purpose of Judeo-Christian religions is to instill a sense of ethics in people. Those ethics and social traditions are what most of us in America are accustomed to. Now you have islamic ethics pushing to challenge those American values as immigrants continue to pour in from those respective countries. And then you have atheism and its associated acts such as satanism and brutal skepticism, which isnt a religion, but a culture in itself, also jumping in to challenge the Judeo-Christian religion, throwing their own spin on what is ethical and not ethical.

The problem here is a single culprit in satanism as it embodies using the enemies of Christianity to strengthen its attack and since satanists call themselves atheists and usually hide their satanic affiliations they cause many problems that arise from their lack of ethics and lack of lawfulness for the scientific and skeptical atheists whom although might not be religious continue to live in an ethical and lawful manner. This damages the reputation of the true atheists that live honorable lives and dont spend their time devising ways to challenge and attack the religions that surround them.

So, a question of ethics regarding atheists should now, due to the current social climate and the explosion of satanism, should now always come with a pretext of "no-satanist atheists" so as not to muddle the blame around and make the true skeptic, the true atheist, the true scientist the fall guy and scapegoat for the costumed crusaders out there.

This was a subject matter I have been wanting to discuss for some time now. Any further comments or ideas here?
Click to expand...

Prove Satan exists. Otherwise, if Satan doesn't exist, then what's the problem with Satanists as long as they follow the law?
 
Legion said:
Atheism seems to me to be like a terrorist organization.

It's unofficial, there are no uniform identifiers, there is no unifying dogma, anyone can drift in and out as circumstances dictate by making a bald statement of non-belief, and the non-believer can disavow any embarrassing excesses by disavowal; i.e., "that's not real atheism". The practitioners can melt into the general population to avoid taking responsibility as the need arises.
Click to expand...
Great. Just like the KKK, Neo-Nazis and other assorted groups of assholes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top