Comments on Ethics for Atheists

Ethics for atheists? ...This suggests that atheists for the most part are not already ethical. Where are the morally backward atheists who are running amok and toppling the foundations of morality?

There is no evidence that atheists are any less ethical than anyone else.

I have been an atheist for as long as I can remember. Indeed, I would say I have been an atheist from the age at which I was able to grasp its meaning. I saw through religion as man-made mysticism from a very young age and I have no conscious recollection of ever being religious in any way whatsoever.

As an atheist, do I feel morally obliged to be good to my neighbor? - Yes. Do I feel empathy for a fellow human being in distress? - yes.

The real question based on the 'ethics for atheists' premise is: As an atheist do I need an 'atheists handbook' of ethical guidelines to know what is good vs. what is bad moral behavior? ...the answer is simple and concise - no I do not.

I have naturally grown up with an innate internal 'moral compass'. I seem to be naturally guided in the direction of what is the morally acceptable course of action in any situation. Did I have to find a moral code in a handbook, to know that returning someone's lost wallet is the right thing to do? ...of course not.

That 'moral compass' is innate in all of us and has no connection to religion. I do not buy into the argument that many theists make that 'they are ethical because of their religion'. They will often push it further and say 'without my religion I could not be moral'.

Richard Dawkins, the 'charles simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science' at Oxford University, once appeared on Fox News and a man phoned in to the program and said on air: "Without religion, I would kill my neighbor". What a low bar; to believe that mankind is so naturally depraved, that if you take away religion, neighbors would start killing one another

Healthy minded parents naturally love their children and guide them within a morally ethical framework of good behavior. The simple fact is that most individuals have a good grasp of what is good behavior and what is bad.

When someone commits a heinous crime, such as murder, rape, child abuse... We immediately assume a psychological flaw in the character of the assailant. The assumption is not derived at based on a subjective whim.

It is well know that a child who did not grow up in a loving household, often grows up with the inability to love others. Indeed, serial killers are able to kill others because they lack empathy. When someone is brutalized as a child, they often grow up to be brutes (not always, some individuals courageously overcome their childhood traumas to become well balanced adults)...

Of course, someone can be brought up in a loving household and grow up to be a brute too, but this seems to be the exception rather than the rule and such individuals most often have a mental deformity or defect that leads to such pathologies.

A favorite and usually deliberate exploitative 'trick' among theists is to link atheism to Stalinism/Nazism and other such morally negative 'isms'. Lets clear these bromides up right now:

To link Stalinism with atheism as though they are synonyms is a non sequitur. While it may be true that Stalin was an atheist, it does not therefore follow, that atheism is the root cause of Stalinism.

The Russian population was very easily exploited by Stalin in the first place, because of years of religious indoctrination. Indeed, because of years of such indoctrination by priests of the church, their minds were inculcated in mysticism that set them up to be very easily exploited by a dictatorial figure, who could set himself up as a god-like 'totem'. I think it would be very unlikely indeed that Stalin could have so easily exploited a population, that was much less mystically minded and held values founded on a secular rather than religious footing.

What goes for Stalinism is equally true of Nazism. It may well be true that many individual Nazis were atheists and it is certainly true that many were Christians. What one cannot say is that atheism is synonymous with Nazism. It is not only dishonest of theists to do so; it is cheap. Hitler himself was certainly not an atheist... read: Hitler Was Not An Atheist, by John Patrick Michael Murphy.

So, to argue for ethics for atheists is really a none-starter. For the most part atheists are already ethical and are innately so.

Theists claim to already have a religious code of ethics within scripture... may I make the 'bold' claim that if they stopped following scripture, they would naturally fall back on their innate internal 'moral compass' just as atheists already do and just as most moderate Christians already do.

We know of course that most Christians are not reading the Bible and taking its edicts as codes to action in real life. Who today is literally following the commands in Leviticus or Deuteronomy... Only a mad-man would. So one could say that: to the degree that theists do not follow the literal interpretation of religious text today and instead follow their own innate morality, then they are simply doing what atheists are already doing... They are living by a moral standard based on reason and not based on faith.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Plus Kits
o Ultimate self-development CDs, combining NLP, hypnosis and brainwaves!

Review: The Trouble with Atheism, Rod Liddle, Channel 4 TV UK

Rod Liddle's whole approach seemed to be based around the belief, that if you criticize religion your being arrogant. What's the big deal about religion that you cannot criticize it, even aggressively?

The whole program came across as an attack on atheists for attacking religious dogmatism, with the claim that the atheists are being just as dogmatic. Well, if religion were not as destructive in the World today, as it so clearly is, then Liddle may have had a point... As it is, his claim "rings hollow". Is it so surprising that atheists are so strident, when religion is causing so much violence in the World? ...I don't think so.

One of the most annoying claims that Liddle made, is that atheism is synonymous with communism. But, I agree with Richard Dawkins in his book 'The God Delusion', it is incidental to it.

Communism itself, I would say is a form of religion... secular yes, atheistic no; there is a difference. It is a dogmatic belief system, which is detached from reality, as is the belief in a personal God... Both theistic religion and communism are dogmatic belief systems, without objectively identifiable evidence of their validity.

Atheism, is not a dogmatic belief system, it is simply the none acceptance of God, based on improbability.

Liddle then goes on to do the same annoying thing with Darwinism, implying that Darwinism and atheism are synonyms (they are not of course, Darwinism is not an atheist Bible)... It is true that an acceptance of Darwinism may weaken an individuals religious convictions. But, the fact that it does is not the primary fundamental of Darwinism ...again, it is incidental. Rod liddle does not seem to be able to tell the difference between fundamental primaries and incidental coincidences. Why did liddle fail to mention that many Christians do accept evolution? ...Would that have weakened his argument?

I found it all rather one sided, with Liddle being far too nice to religion. The time for being nice to religion is up. Look where being too nice and too politically correct, in the name of not upsetting religious sensibilities has got us. It is this wishy-washy attitude to religion, that has allowed religious extremism to fester and spread like an untreated cancer.

It is aggressive ridicule of religion (including through the power of humour) that is necessary, to deflate its "untouchable status".

There was also a comment made, not by Liddle himself (though he didn't dispute it), that without Darwinism there doesn't seem to be any grounds for atheism... This is absurd, it suggests all atheists are Darwinist's and without Darwin atheism is not possible. The proof of the absurdity of this is myself. I have been an atheist all my life. Even as a young child I never bought into the God concept and I held this world-view, before I had any knowledge of Darwin. Of course, I am not denying that some theists may become atheists after reading 'The Origin of Species' ...But one could just as easily say someone became an atheist because they read Sam Harris, even if they are ignorant of Darwin.

And why does Liddle use phrases like "part of the atheist project" ...when referring to Darwinism, is he suggesting that Darwinism is part of an atheist plot to overthrow religion? ...Some kind of mass atheist conspiracy? (perhaps the overthrow of the geocentric view of the universe is part of the same plot). Notice, that not even once does he call Darwinism a scientific theory.

Then Liddle goes on to say that Darwin took on the religious establishment. No he did not, that is exactly what Darwin did not do, again it is purely incidental that Darwin's scientific identifications, where in conflict with religion. From what Liddle says it gives the impression that Darwin's purpose in discovering his theory, was done for the primary purpose of attacking religion. But Darwin was extremely sensitive to the religious beliefs of others and the last thing he wanted to do, was "rock the boat".

Virtually every point Liddle makes throughout the whole program is just plain wrong.

I am also utterly fed up with the coupling of the Nazi regime with atheism... Read this excellent article:

Hitler Was Not An Atheist
by John Patrick Michael Murphy

And finally, this was both sadly and hilariously the most pathetic comment of the whole program, Rod Liddle's absolutely absurd claim that "Communism was a utopia based on reason" ...Lol, if I didn't laugh, I would cry at such a ridiculous comment. Communism was not a system of reasonableness and it was not born out of reasonable thinking; but its antithesis... There was no reason to be found, that is why it was so inhumane... He is doing the same thing that he has done, throughout the whole program, linking atheism with a dogmatic belief system and making a wild claim that they can be coupled together as synonyms.

ENDNOTE:

I get the impression that Liddle made this specifically, as a direct counter-attack on Richard Dawkins 'Root of All Evil?' ...Even the filming style was similar (was it the same camera crew?), the shakey camera technique and even the music had a similarity.

The Root of All Evil? Was a superb series, in fact the only criticism I have of it, is that the interviews were all far too short. Liddle's effort on the other hand was lame.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Brains Power Pro
o Reprogram your inner thoughts using this subliminal software!