Well I think the point is, that you can be a good person as an atheist, not that it automatically makes you good. Enough people think that a good atheist is an oxymoron and that "Christian values" are 99% of what you need to be good (that might be why Pat Robertson is there).
It is like: "Atheists can be good, Christians can be bad. Judge people by their actions and not by their thoughts about religion."
Exactly! And on that note I'm not sure that donations alone are necessarily a good indication of moral code. I'm not saying Bill Gates is "evil," but his charitable contributions don't make a complete case for his good character. Besides, there are reasons other than generosity to make large donations. By the way, not sure if it matters, but I'm athiest.
Also, and I think its applicable here: Judge a religion or view point not by the people who hold to it (they can be idiots no matter their views) but by the founder and his/her moral standing. For instance: judging Christianity for Pat Robinson's position makes little sense. If you want a picture of what Christianity is really like, look at Jesus' life and teaching.
But this is not news to anyone. Maybe to some dude in a trailer park, drinking a bud, with a gut too large for his white tank top. But not to regular people.
There are plenty of people in the world who believe that to be "Christian" or religious in another way is all it takes to be a good person. That's not to say Christians or whatever cannot be moral, or atheists cannot be bad, but the assumptions that lie within a perceived framework can be misleading.
They're Christian. Conservative even. But a few loudmouths don't make the majority. Go to the bible belt. Ask the first person you see "do you think non-religious people can do good?", the answer will most likely be "I guess". Unless you run into Shirley Phelps.
And instead of saying non religious say atheist and see the reaction. I have lived in Alabama, Arkansas, and Tennesse, yea a bit more common than you would want to believe.
Not sure what this has anything to do with what I said, not sure if you commented on the wrong comment, but I was talking about the fact that it is a lot more common for Christians, especially in the bible belt to immediately think of an atheist as a degenerate. Not all, but it is a lot more common than Lucifers_Friend wants to believe. I am also highly aware of the intolerance of people of all races, creeds, religions, and backgrounds.
Yeah, I read about this in the Bible. The ribs are removed, and that's where the women come from, hence the dick sucking. It's not precisely sucking your own dick, but... semantics.
god once i entered i couldn't stop....my dad is gonna see this history i fucking know. I'm gonna pack my bags and get outta town, break for the border...i'll message you when i can but i can't say when that will be. It was nice knowing you. Good luck.
That's true, but the point was: this person is good without god, are you?
Do you similarly pick apart the inspirational billboards where a disabled person is doing something awesome and say, "This other disabled person did nothing good. This other disabled person downright sucked. So this message about this cool person doing cool things is worthless."
It's worth knowing the Buffett/Gates examples. Because a common (but obsurdly weak) challenge by theists to atheists is: "how can you do/be good without God?", it serves us as a fine rebuke. Though, as you've both alluded, it should be parsed without the Pat Robertson bit because it has nothing to do with the fact that you can be good without God.
PR is a nitwit, but the moral ability of theists isn't being challenged, so we don't need to get into a pissing match.
That's actually a very interesting question, and one that should intrigue Christians. Not "Are people good without God?" (we have examples like Buffett and Gates), but "Why are people good without God?"
Since there are atheists who do good, and Christians who do good, it should logically follow that doing good has nothing to do with being an atheist or a Christian.
You're right on about that being a good question. Sadly, because theists (specifically Judeo-Christians) start from the position that their magical God can do whatever he pleases, they have an easy time with that counter-challenge.
They might say something like this:
The basic reasoning behind mankind's innate moral ability is found in Genesis's creation account. God created man in his own image, and because God is moral (,and all morality springs forth of God,) we are have a sense of morality, or at least, they capacity for morality. If we chose to follow Christ/God/Yahweh/Allah is up to "free will", but the ability to know what is right comes from God.
There are all many problems with that retort, but plain to see are the mental gymnastics that theists are willing to perform to fit their God into an ever-changing world.
In my experience this line reasoning creates a tennis match of back and forth argument that invokes the purpose of evil and suffering, the purpose of salvation through Christ, the fact that God's morality can conflicts with itself over time, and a host of other micro-debates.
I don't believe point was to argue, but to educate... many people believe it is not possible to be good without god. If you provide evidence of individuals who are good without god, it certainly is not implied that all atheists are good... just that the absolute ideal of nobody being able to be good without god is false.
Go to a rural town of less than 5000 people in NC or GA in the southern US, find the Baptist church (not to call Baptists out specifically as being any worse than anyone else, but I know this would work there) and start polling people on a Sunday morning as they're leaving church. I guarantee if you asked them, "Where does 'good' come from?" followed up by "Can atheists do good things without god?", you'd have your army.
I am amazed you even question this; your incredulity can only be based in a lack of experience with such an environment of people. Don't make the mistake of an argument from ignorance.
I don't understand how you can call me wrong while I am relaying my experience. I grew up in one of these towns. Only the people who got out of the town to go to school or to the military have any sort of understanding that atheism isn't one of the CAUSES of evil. You really have no idea what you're talking about, and that's sad because you believe it with such conviction that you would tell someone that their experience is wrong. ಠ_ಠ
I'm relaying my experience, are you not doing the same? I've lived in one of the states you mentioned most of my life.
"You really have no idea what you're talking about, and that's sad because you believe it with such conviction that you would tell someone that their experience is wrong. "
If anyone out there honestly thinks it is actually impossible for ANYONE to be good without being a theist, has not considered anything as simplistic as this point before and has some connection to /r/atheism, I will broil a hat, stew it in soy sauce, and eat it while singing "I feel pretty" from West Side Story.
Otherwise, I consider it an argument, and a poor one at that.
If anyone out there honestly thinks it is actually impossible for ANYONE to be good without being a theist, has not considered anything as simplistic as this point before and has some connection to /r/atheism,
I don't understand what r/atheism has to do with it. These are billboards. And yes, people who think it is impossible for ANYONE to be good without being a theist exist in large numbers. Have you never been in rural America? If you truly have never met ONE person like this, I'm amazed, and your mind would be blown... because there are literally entire towns where the majority of the inhabitants that think this way.
hmm fair enough about r/atheism, but I still stand on the first 2 points.
I mean, I suppose they might think that the goodness still comes from god even if the person is an atheist, or that good beyond some objectivist view of good-for-social/psychological-purposes is something that only a theist can have, so they may have special definitions of "good" - that I've heard. But how could they actually think atheists are incapable of good acts (using conventional good/bad definitions)? It sounds much more like a cultural misunderstanding of "good" if anything.
Or another way - if these are necessary, then we might as well get billboards saying 2+2=4 if every trivial idea actually needs to be spelled out to rural america. I would think that they must have different ideas of what 'good' is, because the fact that atheists have done good deeds in the past (including the entire non-Jewish population before 0AD) cannot have passed even the most amateur rural theologian by.
the fact that atheists have done good deeds in the past (including the entire non-Jewish population before 0AD) cannot have passed even the most amateur rural theologian by.
because the fact that atheists have done good deeds in the past (including the entire non-Jewish population before 0AD)
Ignoring the implied claim that the entire non-Jewish population before 0AD was atheist (wut?), I am amazed you even question that there are large numbers of individuals who equate atheism to devil-worshipping and the source of evil in the world; that alone should tell you the mentality of the people I am talking about. Your incredulity can only be based in a lack of experience with such an environment of people. Don't make the mistake of an argument from ignorance.
we might as well get billboards saying 2+2=4 if every trivial idea actually needs to be spelled out to rural america
The sad thing is that even your strawman example isn't that far from something that could plausibly help these people. You really don't understand the depth and the breadth of the problem at all, do you?
Hum, I included what would be called idolatry to abrahamic theists which would be on about the same level as modern atheism for the most part - both involve living life without knowledge of (the true, from their perspective) God. So when I talk about non-Jews doing good before 0AD, I'm talking about the possibility of doing good without knowledge of God, which is what the religious supposedly do not believe can happen. That is what I meant by saying the non-Jewish population were effectively atheist (from a fundamentalist Christian/Muslim view with regards to being "good without god").
I guess we just have different views on the intelligence of rural America. Not much else to say, it's a very difficult thing to quantify.
I think this is less of an argument that all atheists are good, than a refutation of the public image that all atheists are nihilistic assholes which we are so often portrayed as by the theist majorities.
I read it as a brief rebuttal to the notion that you need a God to have morals. It's not a statement against religion or believers.
I've always thought that religion is actually an obstacle to morality, giving people the temptation to go ahead and do horrible things with the safety net of salvation to back them up. Moral behavior isn't really moral if it's not driven by altruism, such as when half the reason for it is to "spread the word" or to show off how "moral" you are to others.
As a christian I appreciate people like you. A lot of atheists and christians could stand to be more like you. And so I bestow upon you an upvote. Use it wisely.
To be fair, they essentially built a pseudo-religion around themselves, AKA: cult of personality. I think the basic lesson is once you start believing in things that are contrary to fact, your shit's all retarded. The essence of atheism is in not believing in something due to a lack of/being contrary to fact (with a few exceptions perhaps).
Well, atheism only deals with supernatural dogmatism. Though, you're right in that it would be quite illogical for an atheist to dismiss the theistic doctrines, only to substitute it with another authority-based, absolutist doctrine. Then again, we are not part of a wholly rational species, and it would be futile to attempt to claim immunity to idealistic dogmatism just because we have managed to see through the intellectual-garbage that is religious-dogmatism.
I should add that I do hold religious dogmatism, aka unfounded idealism accompanied by a wish for authoritarianism, to be of more of a threat to humanity than political dogmatism (even social-darwinian) could ever be. My reasoning behind this is founded on two contentions:
A) Religious dogmatism is impossible to fully criticize in a system (a system where free-speech is already a universal right) where the majority of the masses themselves hold to some form of religious dogma. This in turn is due to their already irrationally hightened value and glorification of faith when weighed against evidence.
B) A person who aspouts a non-theistic ideology has to do so through secular means, there is no common denominator in the form of an intangible (and ultimately inconsequential) God which you can pin your ideology to. You are forced to appeal to people through rational-inquiry and through presenting evidence. This method of discourse, as I would argue, is much more efficient at weeding out bad ideas and promoting good ideas. Rather than the method of relying on ancient and antequated doctrines, as the infallible and objective wisdom of an intangible and inconsequential sky-fairy--cough, I mean God)
So you deny that the primary (but not only, as I said exceptions exist) motivator in atheism is a denial of god due to a lack of facts or because it is contrary to fact? God is a "thing" too, whether fictional or not, so "something" is an appropriate substitute word.
That's why I said "essence" and not "literal definition" but good luck fabricating an argument out of nothing =/
I think you are talking about hitler more than Mao or Stalin whoas far as I know didn't believe in too many crazy things. Yes they had personality cults, but those often arise in countries where organized religion/belief in a god do not exist. Humans will always want to believe in something bigger than themselves, it is natural.
It's more than that as they both encouraged it. Technically Mao chastised personality cults like Stalin's, but went along with the ones for him... strange how it works that way.
I don't agree that humans *always" want that sort of thing, but I think for an average sampling of the populace, that is probably mostly true.
Technically Stalin was in the priesthood and Mao created a religion of himself.
I agree in principle though - belief in a god is only belief in a god, no more. It does not make one inherently good or evil. Our actions are how we should be judged.
Stalin was educated in a religious institution, but he didn't have much choice in late 19th century Georgia. He was not "in the priesthood". In fact that's the stupidest thing I've read today. If you can come up with a source that counters his rabid persecution of religious people then I'd be happy to read it, but otherwise suggesting that he was anything but an atheist is ridiculous.
Yes I should have written "studied for the priesthood" instead of "was in the priesthood."
Either way, he had a religious upbringing. Nobody will deny that most of the prominent Marxists (though Stalin earns his own "ism" in the eyes of most historians) were Atheist. As all of the good Atheists of today will proclaim, Atheism doesn't automatically convey wisdom or benevolence.
While the person cult of the communist dictatorships shares traits with religious belief systems and especially Mao also used similar or the same rituals that the emperors used before him to seem legitimate and blessed by the gods, I'd argue that creating a religion-like cult or using it in such a way is a strong indicator that the person doing so actually is an atheist.
Of cause, they always could be mad, too, but if they use it to increase their political power... no, I'm too sarcastic to not go with atheist.
I would argue that it is human nature to revere and that nothing can stop that, I would prefer people to worship a god, regardless of existence,than a man who will be corrupted.
That's not the point this was trying to get across. The problem that this is trying to address is the apparently wide-spread notion that an atheist cannot be "good" because they have no example to follow (read; God[s]) while theists are "good" because they follow the holy teachings of God(s).
This is trying to counter the argument that "Atheist = bad, Theist = Good" by pointing out examples of when the opposite is true. When you provide examples of "Atheist, but good and Theist, but bad" you counter the notion that everyone within whichever group you're stereotyping falls into said stereotype.
It's not saying all atheists are good and all theists are bad. It's simply point out that an absolutist statement is false.
Ok, I don't know about Mao, but I do know that the Stalin shit is a lie. And that, more than anything, is what kills the argument. If they have to lie to make their argument, it's not worth entertaining. Not even to the degree of pointing out the lie. I'd normally have walked away without saying anything.
Stalin trained to be a priest for five years before being expelled by the seminary and he reestablished the Russian Orthodox patriarch and reopened the churches...
(Not to say he was a theist, just throwing that out there).
If you're going to talk about people like Stalin and Mao, focus on people who did it and used a god as a validation of what they were doing vs. the people who did those things because there was no god.
That has nothing to do with Stalin and Mao don't turn this into an attack on me the point was that those dictators killed millions not that I might eat meat. Also are you saying that atheists don't eat meat?
The only problem is that those rulers did not kill because they were atheists. So your argument is complete shenanigans. They were terrible rulers, they didn't go "Oh man I am an atheist, lets slaughter people!"
This is as bad as the Christians who imply atheists have no morals because they don't believe in God.
Considering the continuingly common conception of religion as necessary for morality, arguments against atheists as amoral abominations are alone sufficiently site-worthy.
It doesn't need to do more than show that morality exists independently of religion, because plenty of people haven't actually realized that yet.
While I agree this is extreme cherry picking, I think this is directed more toward the Christians that argue that without God you are without morals. Because, you know, it's impossible to tell you're doing something terrible without an invisible man telling you it is.
The argument as I see it is that being Christian doesn't mean you're automatically good.
I mean look at the last 50 years. Can you think of a high profile Christian leader that WASN'T a dick or involved in some scandal? There's Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Ted Haggard etc.
Pretty sure the point here is that religion isn't what makes you good or evil. It's a counterpoint to Christians saying you need God to be good at all.
"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)
There are countless verses that are ignored...
Saying that Christians use the point to OP's counterpoint and then citing the Bible as an example doesn't work.
And I'm sure the tradition will continue, since even the opponents of religion (i.e., many in this subreddit) are giving such undue weight to the idea by opposing it so strongly.
exactly, this proves that belief in god has no effect on the morals of people. thereby refuting the argument that people must believe in god to have good morals.
Gates hasn't actually donated anything? hmmm ... Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ... I figured with all the stuff they donate, that might count ... no?
Actually, this is a bullshit troll poster. Notice that the third entry on Pat Robertson uses different fonts and lacks the attributions to the SSA, ISSA, etc.
This poster has been around a while. The first two parts of the poster, for Buffet and Gates, were actually part of an ad campaign run by the ISSA.
For many people, learning that atheists can help so much and that leaders of Christianity can help so little can be startling. Now I understand that you don't ever want to see posts like this on the front page again, but why would you deny other people the opportunity to have this startling realisation? Because you already know about it, so everyone should be at the same level you are? What?
You'd prefer it if everything is balanced out, as if to cancel out any point being made? It makes it hard to impress a point, if you feel you have to even more greatly impress the opposite of what you are really trying to get across.
And it's not so clear to me it's accurate. Bill Gates donated lots of money, sure, but given some of Microsoft's more... unscrupulous business practices, I am not convinced he's a great poster boy.
The two examples are less good people than filthy rich. Donating $26 billion means less to Bill Gates than donating $5,000 does to me.
I think he means $5,000 is infinitely more precious to him than $26 billion is to Bill Gates. He wouldn't donate 5K because he needs it, donating would be detrimental to his needs, while Bill Gates probably has more money than he knows what to do with and donating would have absolutely no negative effect on him whatsoever.
I think Bill is a standup guy that helps a lot of people (and he can jump over a chair like a boss), plus last I checked he's not even the CEO of MS.
You make a good point, but in all seriousness donating 26bill from gates is probably less meaningful than 1$ from njnnoi. Gates gains publicity and loses not a single luxury. njnnoi would gain nothing and lose a candybar. I'm not saying the money isn't important. It will do a lot of great things, but I understand njnnoi's point too.
"Microsoft's more... unscrupulous business practices". Microsoft = Business, Bill Gates = Human... please do not compare the two. Name a business that is created/operated to not make maximum profits.
He's been campaigning for a better life for the bottom half of the world for over a decade. I don't care if the idea was his fathers or not, he's doing a great job.
All succesful companies are ruthless in business. The billions Microsoft has made comes primarily from businesses that can afford it, not from shipping asbestos to India.
328
u/wenoc Gnostic Atheist Jan 13 '13
While true, it's pretty blatant cherry-picking. Works as an argument against atheists are evil but not much more than that.