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.
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.
Befor create anything, we need basic things to survive as Water, Food and shelter. Just after that we'll be able to be a group a society and create Politics, Religion, be Christians or be Atheists. We are humans and Moral is another creation of us.
Because I got just one life I will respect and love this life with all heart, and because I know that you just have one life I will respect you and love you with all heart, we are special and we just live once,because this we have to care about all life in this world.
A better question is when did moral ideologies consistently apply in any religion ? Ive yet to see a religious book that did not contradict one or more of its moral preachings let alone the people of those religions who fail consistently in practicing consistent morals.
Personal morals have nothing to do with net positives or whole of society. Morals are simply a self imposed rule book we chose to follow or not for the betterment of our own mental and physical health. To try and espouse some other grand purpose is disingenuous.