Why does it seem that there are so many atheists who want to go the exact opposite extreme of religion? Maybe I’m more of a humanist then because I do still have a very strong ethical code that I decided on using logic and a true sense of compassion towards others. Moral judgment can be based on the net positives it can provide for the whole of society. Aren’t we all striving to improve ourselves and our communities? Freedom is a wonderful thing worth fighting for, but if those freedoms are not for the betterment of society then we must question if that particular freedom would be best if regulated instead.
In Quebec, profiting from prostitution is illegal, soliciting on the street is illegal, but choosing to sell your own body for your own complete revenue is not illegal. I personally think that is the best policy.
For example, a university friend of mine (we were both studying biochemistry at the time) paid for all her university studies by prostituting herself for just over a year, during college (two years preceding university in Quebec). Two young beautiful young women ran the business out of a nice apartment and became high class call girls. They made a very brisk business. She is now a top exec in a big pharmaceutical company.
I also like the motto "a man who pays for sex is not a man".
"Do we need to abandon all moral ideologies because we are atheist?" What the????
"Moral judgment can be based on the net positives it can provide for the whole of society."
Of course, that is the whole point - something that the christians that I know and heard of - just don't do.
This is what annoys me most - christians think they have cornered the market on morality.
**During 10 years in prison, of those executed for murder - 65% were Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.
I'm not counting communist countries, 'cause they wouldn't say anything anyway - probably get shot.
But very poor countries like Philippines, where birth control is banned if you are a catholic, producing a lot of children, which cannot be fed or clothed or educated, where Christianity and Islam are on the rise, where, flagellation till their backs are raw and covered in blood, and re-enacted crucifixion, complete with nails through the hands and feet, are on the rise...
Mormons and their many wives churning out dozens of children, even if their body just cannot take another pregnancy - the likes of Ted Haggard and his three years of gay sex, and all the other evangelicals, weeping and wailing when they get caught - the list goes on and on and on....
I would pit my morals and ethics and the morals and ethics of my fellow Atheists, against any christian any day - Catholics and their protected pedophiles, from the Pope down - Jehovas Witness and their protected pedophiles - teachers at private schools - a teacher at one of Sydney's most prestigious anglican private schools, been teaching there for twelve years - and a ring of his cohorts, so far 11 in all, caught with pictures of child torture and rape, from the age of eighteen months old.
The million and millions of dollars collected by all these christian charlatans.
Now tell me of the morals and ethics of christians!!!!!
As soon as someone makes the statement 'I am a christian", I run.
**Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns", chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK - 2005.
Why does it seem that there are so many atheists who want to go the exact opposite extreme of religion?Could you explain that? Are you insinuating that those people are crazed pagan anarchists with no moral code? Running around burning and looting and screwing all they please? If not then I'm not sure what you mean. I would argue the exact opposite that in fact most atheists have an extremely strong moral code based on the common desire of humanism which you mentioned.
I believe that the sense of morality is a result of human evolution. One might think that morality comes from religion but that is in fact just an illusion. Basic morality is a universal human characteristic - for example, I do not need scripture to tell me that it is bad to hurt others or steal from others because that would make other humans hurt me or steal from me - it is quite simple really. I think most humans knows or feels this sense of morality. In essence, many atheists simply realize what true morality is and where it comes from. Also, the worst kind of moral teachings actually comes from scripture. Of course, that does not exclude that one can be a crazy atheist son of a bitch and simply ignore any sense of morality and thus misbehave.
Funny that Tanya started this thread, but then has not returned to clarify anything that she asserts. It is obvious that she is a real newbie to Atheism, since she appears to still be drinking the xian propaganda cool-aid about Atheists as a whole. Or maybe she is just a trolling xian in disguise.
She appears to be completely ignoring the fact that morality and an ethical code does not come from any divine superstitious sky-fairy, but rather from sociological ideals. She also seems to have never been taught that there are about 1000% more xians in prison per capita than there are Atheists. She also appears to be completely ignoring that the term "Atheist" is simply a term that denotes that a person does not hold a superstitious delusion about any deities. This does not put us in ANY other category: profession, race, creed, nationality, economical status, political status, or anything else. It's pretty much like saying "why are left-handed people so immoral?"
Maybe she is just lumping all Atheists together based on the few of us that refuse to allow xians to run shod over our lives? So, when we stand up and say "the beliefs that you are trying to shove down my throat are not only superstitious delusion, but they are unethical and un-American and I refuse to allow that", to her, that is us being "hateful" or "unethical" or "immoral" or "forcing our beliefs on everyone else?" Who knows what she was thinking, but obviously it was prejudiced and taken from a xian point of view.
Kind of reminds me of a newspaper article where this woman was ranting about how horrible it was that people killed animals to get meat, and that we should instead go to the store to get our meat so no animals would be harmed in the process. The response to both that article and this post is... HUH?
First and foremost, it wasn't a question. Even though it was stated with a question mark at the end, Tanya is clearly stating that she believes that all Atheists "give up morals" in the process of becoming Atheists, which is why she distinguishes herself as a "humanist."
Second, it appears that I DID give her facts to dispute her claim, or am I missing something? Why do you feel that I did not present any facts? Did you just read the first paragraph of my post and just jump to conclusions?
Third, how dare you insist that I hold my assumptions and judgments? Who died and made you the blog police? Are you REALLY saying that I should not be allowed to have an opinion? ESPECIALLY after the assumptions and judgments that SHE made in the OP. At least I only presented my opinion for what it was: speculation. Tanya presented her assumptions and judgments as though they were foregone conclusions.
As to your last remark: I beg to differ. A good example of a dumb question is one that is not asked to obtain information, but rather to defend a position of stupidity. When a YE creationist disputes radiocarbon by asking the question "How do they know how much of any given element there was in a sample in the first place," not to find out the answer but as a debating point to discount the science, THAT is a dumb question. It appears that Tanya's "question" falls into this category.