atheism and morality

[Altfish]

Yes, some atheists do believe in capitalism and prosperity. It's a correlation, not a law.

Atheists governments on the other hand tend towards oppression, for the exact reason you mentioned. When you're an atheist, you can potentially live for yourself, do your own thing and still recognize what seems like a good thing. When you also rule others, things like wanting to be the supreme authority in their life get in the way.

How do the Scandinavian states tend towards oppression?
They are the most non-religious countries and continually are voted the happiest to live in.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, some atheists do believe in capitalism and prosperity. It's a correlation, not a law.

Atheists governments on the other hand tend towards oppression, for the exact reason you mentioned. When you're an atheist, you can potentially live for yourself, do your own thing and still recognize what seems like a good thing. When you also rule others, things like wanting to be the supreme authority in their life get in the way.

First no correlation.

Second you seem to be confusing nationalist with atheist government.

When you are an atheist you have no god sitting on your shoulder telling you what is right and wrong. Poor us have to rely on innate human morality. You know what i mean, that old morality that allowed civilization to develope so that religions could flourish and steal morality, bastardise it to omit anyone not worshipping their god giving them an excuse to kill the non believers. Very moral religions eh?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, some atheists do believe in capitalism and prosperity. It's a correlation, not a law.

Atheists governments on the other hand tend towards oppression, for the exact reason you mentioned. When you're an atheist, you can potentially live for yourself, do your own thing and still recognize what seems like a good thing. When you also rule others, things like wanting to be the supreme authority in their life get in the way.

Who wants an atheist government? Uber weird concept.
All for a secular government, though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How do the Scandinavian states tend towards oppression?
They are the most non-religious countries and continually are voted the happiest to live in.

Look at a heat map of religiosity, and it's hard to draw any other conclusion.
I will say, though, that secular countries with low levels of religion seem happy. Countries where religion has been suppressed, not so much. Totalitarianism doesn't look any better when it's not theocratical, imho.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Which god?

The right one, of course.
Which is whichever one the person making the pronouncement happens to follow.

Mind you, I have been told that following any God is better than not following one at all once or twice. Hard to know how to respond to that!

 

[Valjean]

Who wants an atheist government? Uber weird concept.
All for a secular government, though.

What problems do you see with an atheist government? Theocracies haven't had a particularly good track record. Repression is repression whether the dictator is terrestrial or heavenly.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What problems do you see with an atheist government? Theocracies haven't had a particularly good track record. Repression is repression whether the dictator is terrestrial or heavenly.

What the heck is an atheist government? Why would I want it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do the Scandinavian states tend towards oppression?
They are the most non-religious countries and continually are voted the happiest to live in.

They are just oppressed into being happy!
If they aren't happy, they are shipped to goulags, didn't you know? ;-)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Look at a heat map of religiosity, and it's hard to draw any other conclusion.
I will say, though, that secular countries with low levels of religion seem happy. Countries where religion has been suppressed, not so much. Totalitarianism doesn't look any better when it's not theocratical, imho.

Very true.

I am as atheistic as they come. But I will fight with all I have for anyones right to believe whatever nonsense they wish to believe.

The day beliefs are oppressed, is the day freedom dies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What problems do you see with an atheist government?

For starters, I wouldn't know what such a thing would be.

Maybe you can help out?
How is an "atheist government" different from a secular one?


I have the feeling that when people say "atheist government", they rather mean more something along the lines of "anti-theist government", where theism is literally forbidden / outlawed / prohibitted / illegal.

 

[Altfish]

For starters, I wouldn't know what such a thing would be.

Maybe you can help out?
How is an "atheist government" different from a secular one?


I have the feeling that when people say "atheist government", they rather mean more something along the lines of "anti-theist government", where theism is literally forbidden / outlawed / prohibited / illegal.

This is exactly what too many theists do assume.

BUT secular (Note not atheist) government is only different in that the influence of religion on government is hopefully removed. That means laws are based on evidence and science not on faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

BUT secular (Note not atheist) government is only different in that the influence of religion on government is hopefully removed. That means laws are based on evidence and science not on faith.

Sure but what is, or would be, the practical difference?
I'm not seeing it.

It seems to me that there isn't any difference.

My atheism doesn't "steer" my life or my "policies", if you will.
Gods / religions in my life are non-issues. When I have decisions to make, policies to assume, then gods / the supernatural / religious belief are not taken into account at any point. I don't base my decisions or policies from the perspective of an a priori assumptions that those things are true or accurate, and something to keep in mind.

It seems to me that that is exactly what secular governments are supposed to be doing.
Not base their laws and policies assuming such things are real. But rather on rational evidence and science, as you say.

We can turn it around if that makes it clearer...
Instead of calling myself an atheist, I could also call myself a secularist.
What would be the practical difference?

I might be missing something off course. But I'm not seeing it.

 

[Altfish]

Sure but what is, or would be, the practical difference?
I'm not seeing it.

It seems to me that there isn't any difference.

My atheism doesn't "steer" my life or my "policies", if you will.
Gods / religions in my life are non-issues. When I have decisions to make, policies to assume, then gods / the supernatural / religious belief are not taken into account at any point. I don't base my decisions or policies from the perspective of an a priori assumptions that those things are true or accurate, and something to keep in mind.

It seems to me that that is exactly what secular governments are supposed to be doing.
Not base their laws and policies assuming such things are real. But rather on rational evidence and science, as you say.

We can turn it around if that makes it clearer...
Instead of calling myself an atheist, I could also call myself a secularist.
What would be the practical difference?

I might be missing something off course. But I'm not seeing it.

In many ways it will be the same; but...take the UK.

• There will not be Bishops in the upper house,
• We would not have government funded religious schools.
• Religion would not have undue influence in matters such as abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, etc.

Atheism is solely a lack of belief in gods
Secularism is a way of life not influenced by religion(s)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In many ways it will be the same; but...take the UK.

• There will not be Bishops in the upper house,
• We would not have government funded religious schools.
• Religion would not have undue influence in matters such as abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, etc.

Atheism is solely a lack of belief in gods
Secularism is a way of life not influenced by religion(s)

Owkay I see what you're saying

Although I'ld add that one can wonder what a secular government is doing with bishops in its governmental institutions, with funding religious schools and allowing religious arguments in debates about anything.

Sounds to me like those are a fundamental violation of secular principles.

Over here in Belgium, we most certainly don't have religious figures in government (or at least not operating in that function - you might have a pastor for example who runs for mayor, but while in office, he's a mayor and treated as such, not a pastor!).

When anyone in a political debate tries to argue from religious perspectives, he kind of loses by default.

There is funding of religious schools however. There is also funding of religious institutions. But there is no discrimination of the religion. There is funding of mosques, christian churches, synagogues,...
And the criteria for getting those funds are not from a religious perspective either.
The funding of a church is on par with funding of any community activity, religious or otherwise.
The same goes for schools. The criteria there are about the curriculum which needs to meet certain standards and the amount of students.

Having said all that, I get what you're saying.
You're probably correct.

As an atheist, I wouldn't contribute to funding a church.
As a secularist, I might.

True.

Sounds a bit semantic though.

 

[Altfish]

Although I'ld add that one can wonder what a secular government is doing with bishops in its governmental institutions, with funding religious schools and allowing religious arguments in debates about anything.

Sounds to me like those are a fundamental violation of secular principles.

.

The UK isn't secular, we have a national religion!

 

[Valjean]

What problems do you see with an atheist government? Theocracies haven't had a particularly good track record. Repression is repression whether the dictator is terrestrial or heavenly.

Sorry. Got confused between this and Samantha Rinne's posts.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Owkay I see what you're saying

Although I'ld add that one can wonder what a secular government is doing with bishops in its governmental institutions, with funding religious schools and allowing religious arguments in debates about anything.

Sounds to me like those are a fundamental violation of secular principles.

Over here in Belgium, we most certainly don't have religious figures in government (or at least not operating in that function - you might have a pastor for example who runs for mayor, but while in office, he's a mayor and treated as such, not a pastor!).

When anyone in a political debate tries to argue from religious perspectives, he kind of loses by default.

There is funding of religious schools however. There is also funding of religious institutions. But there is no discrimination of the religion. There is funding of mosques, christian churches, synagogues,...
And the criteria for getting those funds are not from a religious perspective either.
The funding of a church is on par with funding of any community activity, religious or otherwise.
The same goes for schools. The criteria there are about the curriculum which needs to meet certain standards and the amount of students.

Having said all that, I get what you're saying.
You're probably correct.

As an atheist, I wouldn't contribute to funding a church.
As a secularist, I might.

True.

Sounds a bit semantic though.

Take yourself out of the picture, it might make it easier.
A Christian can be a secularist. They can't be an atheist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Take yourself out of the picture, it might make it easier.
A Christian can be a secularist. They can't be an atheist.

true

 

[Joshua Pryce]

there are parts in our world were atheism is illegal. many people of religion think that atheists, since they don't believe in god, they have no morals. this is a misconception. morality can be and is independent of god. a person shouldn't necessarily believe in a creator god in order to have a high ethical standard. as long as atheists are moral beings they can deny god as long as they wish. laws shouldn't ban atheism.

While i agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, its safe to say that atheism doesnt have morals. Morals come from believing in a law, but all law its divinely inspired and has divine origin. The human conscience comes from having a human spirit. This is something given by God. This is why animals do things without any mental warning or regret, when they do something wrong or terrible. The animal kingdom has no justice system. Nothing does but us.

 

[ChristineM]

While i agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, its safe to say that atheism doesnt have morals. Morals come from believing in a law, but all law its divinely inspired and has divine origin. The human conscience comes from having a human spirit. This is something given by God. This is why animals do things without any mental warning or regret, when they do something wrong or terrible. The animal kingdom has no justice system. Nothing does but us.

Morality is a human (and some animals) trait. Without morality humanity could not have formed civilization which in turn gave rise to religion.

Then religion stole morality for itself and used it against those who do not follow a particular brand of religion. Using it as a good excuse to kill non believers.

I am atheist and i would pit my morality against most moralistic religious folk