If you were an atheist instead of religious...

[Don in the North]

In the atheist least trusted group thread, i posed a question to signifierone, which went unanswered.. probably cuz it was off topic anyway. I feel it is a worthy question that deserves an answer.
Due to that i would like to raise this question again, except against a demographic instead of a single person.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...53#post9648053 < original post and context.


let us hypothesize that you no longer adhere to christianity/islam/judiasm/etc, for whatever reason and as a result
you have become a full fledged atheist.
let us also hypothesize that you were in a relationship with someone.
Do you believe that you would commit infidelity against her/him, and would do so because you are atheist and thus, have no moral compass? (according to insinuations from some religious people, some on this forum, not my own views)

i look forward to your answer.

[Their Law]

Wait so atheists have no moral compass now? Strange i seem to have one, guess i must be the exception to the rule.

[The Dude]

You're asking people to answer a question about a situation they have no hope of imagining. They don't know what it is like to be an atheist and to make your choices based on a different moral compass from theirs.

In a sense this is what you are asking: you cannot see the colors red, blue and green. But you do have access to an entirely different set of colors that we cannot see or know anything about. How would you describe the world around you?

[Don in the North]

Wait so atheists have no moral compass now? Strange i seem to have one, guess i must be the exception to the rule.

the statement i made about moral compass doesnt reflect my own views, but rather the insinuations from the thread i linked that led me to ask that question.
to reiterate; i do not believe atheists lack a moral compass, in fact quite the opposite considering atheists generate their own, and religious people do not.
i shall edit my OP to avoid confusion

You're asking people to answer a question about a situation they have no hope of imagining. They don't know what it is like to be an atheist and to make your choices based on a different moral compass from theirs.

In a sense this is what you are asking: you cannot see the colors red, blue and green. But you do have access to an entirely different set of colors that we cannot see or know anything about. How would you describe the world around you?

perhaps what you say is true, but they seem to know enough about atheism to make wild assumptions such as the "moral compass" or lack thereof; that leads me to believe they are capable of some form of empathy, no matter how biased it is.
regardless, i am interested in their response.

[Jack04]

I do think it is a smaller part of a larger, potentially more interesting question, though it isn't worded hugely well (no offence intended Don). Perhaps something along the lines of: "Do you feel that your faith is all that prevents you from acting immorally?".

Or, a more general question (i.e not specific to the religious): "Do you feel that mankind is intrinsically good (or evil)?". Picking out specific examples always runs the risk of adding a certain amount of unwanted context to the general principle behind the question.

[The Dude]

perhaps what you say is true, but they seem to know enough about atheism to make wild assumptions such as the "moral compass" or lack thereof; that leads me to believe they are capable of some form of empathy, no matter how biased it is.
regardless, i am interested in their response.

Most attacks on atheism are not a questioning of its legitimacy but an attempt at reinforcing one's own prejudices. As long as people can convince themselves that what they believe is right, they will not have to risk anything. Having your worldview challenged, or even challenging it yourself, is a taxing and sometimes demotivating affair. I don't blame theists for attacking atheism when I know they must, and I do not blame religious people for trying to find value in their dogma.

I do however, blame the people responsible for said dogma in the first place.

[Their Law]

Speaking as an atheist i find the idea of infidelity a morally deplorable act, it's a betrayal of trust and respect between yourself and your partner.

I resent the implication that if you're an atheist you're suddenly without a moral compass and will immediately sink into an amoral quagmire.

[m_1512]

What Religion basically does, is that it gives some purpose or meaning to life. At least my religion gives me a way of living. But infidelity has nothing to do with atheism or theism. Whether you are a devoted spouse or cheating (don't want to say it, but get the idea) depends upon the persons' morals.

[Apollyon]

"Yes, without my faith to guide me i fear i would succumb to my inner desires and cheat on my signifcant other."

People who seriously believe that are either people who have been brainwashed by their pastors/priests/imams, or they are not normal, they are psychopaths. You do not need to be religious to have a fully functioning moral compass.

Strong words I know, but I'd like to hear anyone refute them.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I was hoping votes for the first 2 options. People are so much more interesting when they have little decency.

[Col. Tartleton]

I'm amoral because I don't believe in God.
I'd be immoral if I believed in God.
I'm certainly unethical.
I'm one bad bad man-child.

[Makrell]

would i have grown up with religion and later become atheist, or would i have grown up as an atheist

[Don in the North]

either works really. the circumstances surrounding my question arent relevant, whatever floats your boat to fill the blanks is fine and doesnt really have to be justified as its only a hypothetical situation

[SigniferOne]

Do you believe that you would commit infidelity against her/him, and would do so because you are atheist and thus, have no moral compass?

Once again, and I hope that it is clear this time:

It is not the case that if you're an atheist you have no moral compass. That's a superb strawman. No one has argued that.

The argument is that if you're an atheist, you have no basis for your moral compass. You can make stuff up as you go along.

[The Dude]

Once again, and I hope that it is clear this time:

It is not the case that if you're an atheist you have no moral compass. That's a superb strawman. No one has argued that.

The argument is that if you're an atheist, you have no basis for your moral compass. You can make stuff up as you go along.

So in what sense is belief in a basis an actual basis, then?

[Their Law]

The argument is that if you're an atheist, you have no basis for your moral compass. You can make stuff up as you go along.

That's incorrect, Atheist have a basis for their morality, myself i base my morality off secular humanist thought, and i try to keep to it.

The whole argument that atheists lack a basis for morals is a massive straw-man. They do, just not one exclusively based in a single document (or by implication a supreme being).

[removeduser_4536284751384]

The argument is that if you're an atheist, you have no basis for your moral compass. You can make stuff up as you go along.

One could argue that my ultimate desire is to pursue hapiness, and so is everyone else's, so the only way to have a functioning society is to safeguard each other's freedom to pursue hapiness. What if it made someone happy to interfere with others? Well I have yet to answer that question.

It's a bit like the fact that I am forced to accept that the reality I am percieving through my senses is real, even though it might not be.

It may be a pathetic attempt, but I will conquer my nihilism eventually.

That's incorrect, Atheist have a basis for their morality, myself i base my morality off secular humanist thought, and i try to keep to it.

The whole argument that atheists lack a basis for morals is a massive straw-man. They do, just not one exclusively based in a single document (or by implication a supreme being).

Actually atheists really have no objective morality. If someone thinks it's ok to storm around killing people, well how can an atheist convince them otherwise? Why are you right and they wrong? Not that Christian morality is much better. "God said x is right and y is wrong, children".

If you constantly move around and never get caught though, i see no reason why you shouldnt.

If the only thing stopping you from cheating is your religion you're obviously in a crappy relationship.

the issue with this poll is that we can nev er know if pure atheism would destoy ssomeones moral compass. EVERYONE is shaped by their sorroundings and EVERYONE has more or less some sort of religion in their sorroundings and are hence shaped also by religion. (yes this can be put the other way aound aswell)

Nonsense.

[Makrell]

So it would be a bit like being a serial killer? . . . a serial adulterer

sort of

If the only thing stopping you from cheating is your religion you're obviously in a crappy relationship.

you misunderstand. there is nothing stopping him. If he doesnt want to it is solely his free will that decide if he can. Religion on the other hand throws more things like the afterlife and hence gives more considerations as to what to do

[removeduser_4536284751384]

you misunderstand. there is nothing stopping him. If he doesnt want to it is solely his free will that decide if he can. Religion on the other hand throws more things like the afterlife and hence gives more considerations as to what to do

according to your own religion you're not allowed to even want to.

[Don in the North]

so what you are saying is that atheists are only moralistic when it suits them?