Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First off, there are nuts anywhere with practically any world view you want. If you want to blame this guy due to atheism, you might as well go ahead and blame the recent Colerado shooter on his fundemantalist Christian upbringing.
Secondly, I will point out that the terms "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest." are part of the theory of evolution, which is a scientific theory, not a religion, though some people seem determined to claim otherwise.
While it is true that many Atheists are also evolutionists, there are plenty of evolutionists who are not Atheists.
Regardless of that, the most obviously false statement is the last one:
How many atheists have you known personally? Probably more than you think.
Now, this means that in the U.S.A. about 1 in 10 people is a nontheist of one variety or another.
In France perhaps as many as 1 out of 3 people are atheists, and only a little more than 1 in 10 people are a practicing theist.
In the UK, perhaps as many as 2 out of every 5 people are nontheists.
If your statement were anywhere near true, you would expect to see massive crime problems, especially in countries with the higher counts of nontheists right?
They provide a similar distribution to the wikipedia article, though they have a little more detail. Indeed, it is tough to do any sort of poll with a high degree of precision. Still, we are looking for general distribution here.
First off, another relevant quote:
So, just looking at the stats in general, it looks like nontheists are generally agreed to be about 4% or so of the U.S. population, but only about .21% of the U.S. prison population.
If Atheism breeds rampant murder and evil and so forth, you would expect there to be a large number of atheists and nontheists(your blanket statement suggests that a lack of an objective source of morality is the cause of the killing) should be in prison as a result of their actions.
Fact is, we just don't see that happening in reality though.
Just a little sampling of some relevant murder rankings by country:
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#30 Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people
#40 France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
#51 Netherlands: 0.0111538 per 1,000 people
#53 Denmark: 0.0106775 per 1,000 people
#54 Norway: 0.0106684 per 1,000 people
Now, if nontheists were inherantly more violent people, you would expect nations with more of them in it to have a higher murder rate. After all, if 40% of the population were bloodthirsty killers, you would expect them to do some killing.
Anyhow, there is my longwinded rant supporting the following statement:
I have never seen any credible evidence supporting the assertion that nontheists have a greater tendency to commit crimes than anyone else. There is even some admittedly circumstancial evidence that suggests the exact opposite is true.
To answer your question a bit more directly though, the answer is no. The unfortunate incident you describe is not the life we would have in a world with no objective moral values. Many of us in fact believe that we are in such a world and do so without showing any trend toward immorality.
but the last part i have to very much disagree with. religion isn't the highroad to morality. people can be moral without religion.
the last 7 commandments are things that civilizations try or have tried the world round, through various religions and by people that don't claim a religion. your last comment would be like saying that every atheist is going to run out and kill someone. which obviously isn't true = atheists don't have any lesser of a moral compass.
morals are more societal than anything, morality is needed in any society, or else the society fails
I've stated through this forum ..As a result of socio-biological pressures, there has evolved among humans a sort of “herd morality” which functions in our species in the struggle for survival. But there does not seem to be anything about homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true. I AM NOT SAYING that we must believe in God in order to live moral lives. Atheists and theists do live moral lives, that's a fact, but some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. Moreover, if atheism is true, there is no moral accountability for one’s actions. Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. As I said before, if life ends at the grave, it makes no difference whether one lives as a Stalin or as a saint. If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted. This is what the shooter in Finland understood.
If you have a problem about this incident, then why? Why does it bother you? Why is it "wrong" ?
Atheists and theists do live moral lives, that's a fact, but some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest.
Atheism makes absolutely no moral claims whatsoever. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. That is all it is.
You might as well make the statement:
"...but there is in the view of those who don't believe in the Loch Ness monster, nothing really wrong with committing incest."
It is simply unrelated.
Quote:
Moreover, if atheism is true, there is no moral accountability for one’s actions.
Our society provides and has always provided moral accountability for actions.
Keep in mind that it is our justice system and cultural values that keep people in line. Society establishes what is right and what is wrong for itself, then provides for measures to enforce those policies.
Quote:
Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability.
I don't know about you, but my parents taught me right from wrong, as did those people I took on as role models. Sure, I don't believe there is an all powerful force waiting to pounce on me the moment I deviate from it, but when I was young I was educated regarding right and wrong.
Morality is subjective. Most people today would be considered completely immoral by completely different cultures, especially those in the distant past such as bronze age cultures.
Take as an example first contact between western civilizations and Japan. Their moral systems were extremely different, but both saw themselves as being moral.
Quote:
As I said before, if life ends at the grave, it makes no difference whether one lives as a Stalin or as a saint. If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted. This is what the shooter in Finland understood.
If you have a problem about this incident, then why? Why does it bother you? Why is it "wrong" ?
It bothers me because it was taught to bother me. Subjective morality does not necessarily mean amorality.
Let me put it this way. If you or I were born in Japan in say the 1930s, we would probably have grown up as Shintoists, worshipped our ancestors and been willing to lay down our lives for an Emperor who we would believe to be divine in nature.
That would have been considered moral to us in that situation.
As for morality itself, it matters in reality because we believe it does. As for whether there is a cutoff point due to nonexistance or not doesn't matter. It is still the same thing.
Honestly, I find the whole concept of eternal reward/punishment disturbing. It points to a line of thinking where an individual does good for essentially selfish reasons (gain reward, avoid an eternity of torture) rather than for doing it for an actual altruistic reason such as empathy for the suffering of others.
So yes, I recognize where my moral code came from and realize that it only has what meaning we choose to give it. I try my best to ensure that my actions agree with what I believe is right because I want to be altruistic, because I value the lives of others, and because I want to do my part to make the sort of world I want to live in.
I like to think most people have grown beyond enforcement based morality.
To answer your other question, yes, I am an Atheist and proud to be one. Specifically, I am a weak Atheist, which essentially means that I dismiss the concept of deities because I find the evidence of their existance lacking credibility.
Now, I have a question for you:
Do you think that having a system of morality you believe to have been created by a deity as opposed to a human has more value?
MRiedl, we are talking about OBJECTIVE moral values. Things like rape and murder. Things we know are wrong whether we were taught them or not.
For example, even if Germany won WWII and went on with the slaughtering of Jews, this does not make it right. Sure, there were more incidents in history like this, but that did not make them right and nor did they last forever.
Do you agree that murder and rape of a little child are objectively wrong?
Atheism makes absolutely no moral claims whatsoever. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. That is all it is.
You might as well make the statement:
"...but there is in the view of those who don't believe in the Loch Ness monster, nothing really wrong with committing incest."
It is simply unrelated.
Our society provides and has always provided moral accountability for actions.
Keep in mind that it is our justice system and cultural values that keep people in line. Society establishes what is right and what is wrong for itself, then provides for measures to enforce those policies.
I don't know about you, but my parents taught me right from wrong, as did those people I took on as role models. Sure, I don't believe there is an all powerful force waiting to pounce on me the moment I deviate from it, but when I was young I was educated regarding right and wrong.
Morality is subjective. Most people today would be considered completely immoral by completely different cultures, especially those in the distant past such as bronze age cultures.
Take as an example first contact between western civilizations and Japan. Their moral systems were extremely different, but both saw themselves as being moral.
It bothers me because it was taught to bother me. Subjective morality does not necessarily mean amorality.
Let me put it this way. If you or I were born in Japan in say the 1930s, we would probably have grown up as Shintoists, worshipped our ancestors and been willing to lay down our lives for an Emperor who we would believe to be divine in nature.
That would have been considered moral to us in that situation.
As for morality itself, it matters in reality because we believe it does. As for whether there is a cutoff point due to nonexistance or not doesn't matter. It is still the same thing.
Honestly, I find the whole concept of eternal reward/punishment disturbing. It points to a line of thinking where an individual does good for essentially selfish reasons (gain reward, avoid an eternity of torture) rather than for doing it for an actual altruistic reason such as empathy for the suffering of others.
So yes, I recognize where my moral code came from and realize that it only has what meaning we choose to give it. I try my best to ensure that my actions agree with what I believe is right because I want to be altruistic, because I value the lives of others, and because I want to do my part to make the sort of world I want to live in.
I like to think most people have grown beyond enforcement based morality.
To answer your other question, yes, I am an Atheist and proud to be one. Specifically, I am a weak Atheist, which essentially means that I dismiss the concept of deities because I find the evidence of their existance lacking credibility.
Now, I have a question for you:
Do you think that having a system of morality you believe to have been created by a deity as opposed to a human has more value?
If so, why?
Cool, a philosophically consistent atheist...on the morality question. Although I think you should replace the phrase grown beyond enforcement based morality with conditioned out of enforcement based morality. "Moral growth" presupposes objective moral standards.
MRiedl, we are talking about OBJECTIVE moral values. Things like rape and murder. Things we know are wrong whether we were taught them or not.
For example, even if Germany won WWII and went on with the slaughtering of Jews, this does not make it right. Sure, there were more incidents in history like this, but that did not make them right and nor did they last forever.
Do you agree that murder and rape of a little child are objectively wrong?
I don't believe there is any such thing as the sort of objective morality which you are describing. We (or at least I) have been talking about morality in general.
There are perhaps a few things which are instinctual, for example, the connections between parent and child and the protective instinct that comes with it.
Beyond that sort of thing I don't believe there is any magical force out there that would have for example made the Nazi's feel bad about themselves if they had achieved their goals. It would be kind of nice if there were such a thing I suppose, but there just isn't evidence of it.
Sure, there are a lot of things like you describe which are completely abhorrent to the vast majority of people, but that is simply because it is pretty much universally a part of our subjective moral systems. Perhaps the reason for this may have some instinctual basis.
Animals often show some degree of altruism toward their own kind and their close family in particular.
In any case, I am no expert in this sort of thing. Still, if you do a little reading about the sorts of laws they used to make in ancient times, I find it hard to believe that morality is not at least for the largest part subjective.
Different cultures have had wildly different views on such subjects as murder, suicide, slavery, genocide, and other core moral issues. Today we would find many of them abhorrent, but back in the bronze age for example, things were quite a bit different.
Also, I will point out that you didn't answer the question I asked at the end of my last post.
Since you seem to have missed it, I will repost:
Quote:
Now, I have a question for you:
Do you think that having a system of morality you believe to have been created by a deity as opposed to a human has more value?
If so, why?
===============================
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perceiver
Cool, a philosophically consistent atheist...on the morality question. Although I think you should replace the phrase grown beyond enforcement based morality with conditioned out of enforcement based morality. "Moral growth" presupposes objective moral standards.
Perhaps, but I tend to think of it personally as being progress of a sort. It represents an improvement to me. I guess to a point it still comes down to a certain amount of conditioning in that morality provides real benefits to the wellbeing of people as a group, but at the same time there is still the concept of looking out for others for its own sake.
It might not be an airtight logical way of seeing things, but I am not an unbiased observer of morality. I am a participant, but one who tries to observe as well. Perhaps after a while morality can take on something of a life of its own in that regard? If so, perhaps there is in fact growth of a sort.
In this case I don't believe atheism is anymore at fault for the shooting then I believe christianity was at fault for the shootings that happened recently in Colorado.
The only thing I can see at fault is lack of mental health on the part of the shooter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
