What do Atheists Believe?

[Skyler]

If there's one thing I've heard about atheists, it's that they do not believe in the existence of a God.

So then, what do you believe?

It's been my experience that there is little or no value in engaging in a debate with someone who has no position on the subject. So, please, share your positions.

[realthinker]

I have no doubt that you are more moral than I am, but you still have no basis for your morality.

This makes no sense whatsoever. If I am moral, obviously I "have a basis for it" and as an Atheist you can be sure it was not the bible.

This is a concept that very few Atheist get (Fallibleone is the rare exception here).
So let me try and say it again, there are many good reasons why people are moral, but there is no reason why anyone should be moral.

You're seeming to be a bit daft with this. You should be moral in your own interest because if you are not your interests will be marginalized. You will not have opportunity to reap the social advantages from your community.

You should be moral because if you are not you are likely compromising someone else's opportunity to reap the social advantages of our community, and I don't like that prospect. My interest is in protecting the community that supports me. I don't like people upsetting that social arrangement.

That's why laws stem from morality. As a community we are better off if we decide that moral transgressions are treated consistently. Each of us knows what we can do or not. We can easily portray that expectation to others. We know how we as a community are to act in the face of a transgression.

Morality is about community. From a personal perspective it's about whether you get to be part of it and how. From a group perspective it's about how we react to those who'd not be part of our arrangement.

I guess that's why morality isn't consistent. Some groups have not recognized what works best. There are some fundamentals that most have reached, but no community, I'd guess, has refined it to its fullest. And I guess it changes over time with respect to the challenges --natural, political, social -- that we may find ourselves up against.

In other words morality is an illusion, there is no such thing. It is like Santa Clause, it does not exist. An Atheist who still believes in morality is not a true Atheist.
And judging by the responses I have gotten to this post, I have to say that many of you are not true Atheists, as you still believe in invisible, non verifiable god like forces of morality.

Morality is not a "force", it's a reasoned response. Perhaps it's not a conscious collection of ideas for each of us individually. It's a collective response to what our communities have encountered. It's culture and tradition, accumulated over countless generations. There's nothing mystical about it.

So can any of you so called Atheist, tell me what your morality is based on other than your own personal preferences, or are you going to just bite the bullet and say that morality is just "what is convenient for us".

If you don't get it after this, I don't know what more we can do. I gather from the responses that most here are on the same page, but perhaps haven't gone so deep in it to explain it as clearly as you may require. If you have particular questions, by all means bring them about. But from what you've posted so far, I can't grasp what aspect of this you're not getting.

[realthinker]

An Atheist who still believes in morality is not a true Atheist.
And judging by the responses I have gotten to this post, I have to say that many of you are not true Atheists, as you still believe in invisible, non verifiable god like forces of morality.
So can any of you so called Atheist, tell me what your morality is based on other than your own personal preferences, or are you going to just bite the bullet and say that morality is just "what is convenient for us".

If by us you mean our species, then right, morality is just what is best and most convenient for us. Without a human species, what you call morality becomes quite pointless, eh?

Without a community of humans morality is pointless. That is, unless I extend my community to include non-humans. Most of us have. We include our pets, livestock, and to some degree other animals as well, but that's probably due to our anthropomorphism.

Humans are a social species. Certain collective values have become embedded in us through countless generations by evolution, by selective pressures.
Morality, like beauty, has no tangible existence outside of human experience. Both attributes are subjective yet can be studied objectively. For instance, we instinctively find certain characteristics beautiful (symmetry and other such characteristics seem to come into play). In a similar way, we instinctively find certain attitudes and actions immoral (fairness for example). Recognizing the reality of both beauty and morality does not require any kind of god-like being.

Morality is a common understanding of behavior that does not serve the community. It's about behavior that we should each recognize as compromising our acceptance in the community and behavior that we see in others from which we should protect our community. It is also an understanding of the consequences of that behavior. What is a serious offense? What is reprehensible for what it suggests more than for the transgression itself? We want trustworthy people. Stealing grapes from someone else's table isn't so bad. It's just a grape. But it may suggest that you'd steal other things, simply because you crossed that boundary.

Communities thrive on trust, expected behavior and anticipated consequences.

[olavisjo]

Since you would rather characterize my previous response as a rant, rather than debate it on its merits, let's break this down.

You came to the regatta with a Ferrari, we are not defining morality, we are looking for a reason to be moral.

You should because of consequences if you don't. The consequences could include damage to your self esteem, feeling guilty or even jail time.

I can live with my self esteem, I can live with the guilt, I can live with the possibility of jail time. And I am going to embezzle $5 million and live the playboy lifestyle on the French Rivera or face the consequences, I am just not going to work 9 to 5 on the assembly line for the rest of my life.
So your reasons to be moral don't impress me, can you come up with even one good reason to be moral. And all this peace and goodwill towards mankind does not fly.

You are repeating yourself and completely ignoring other posts that have clearly addressed your argument.

If I am ignoring them it is because they have not addressed my argument, but you would not know because you clearly still do not know what my argument is.

You're seeming to be a bit daft with this. You should be moral in your own interest because if you are not your interests will be marginalized. You will not have opportunity to reap the social advantages from your community.

That is my whole point, I do not want to "reap the social advantages from my community". I want life in the fast lane, I want to go fast, I want the high life and I am willing to risk it all to get it. You can keep your 9-5, your house in the suburbs with picket fence and a dog in the yard, I want the headlines, I want to be the one that eluded the FBI, INTERPOL and KGB. Does your reason for morality have nothing for me?

If you don't get it after this, I don't know what more we can do. I gather from the responses that most here are on the same page, but perhaps haven't gone so deep in it to explain it as clearly as you may require.

You are all reading from the encyclopedia, I am reading "Silence of the Lambs".

Communities thrive on trust, expected behavior and anticipated consequences.

Yes, communities do, but individuals like myself don't.
"Catch Me If You Can".

[Cmass]

I can live with my self esteem, I can live with the guilt, I can live with the possibility of jail time. And I am going to embezzle $5 million and live the playboy lifestyle on the French Rivera or face the consequences, I am just not going to work 9 to 5 on the assembly line for the rest of my life.

Huh?
What a bizarre statement. If you are not bothered by the consequences of being immoral then you are not a moral person.

So your reasons to be moral don't impress me, can you come up with even one good reason to be moral. And all this peace and goodwill towards mankind does not fly.

You have either not read the previous several pages of responses to you or you don't understand them.
If the "peace and goodwill towards others" doesn't impress you perhaps you simply don't have the empathy required to appreciate those qualities.

If I am ignoring them it is because they have not addressed my argument, but you would not know because you clearly still do not know what my argument is.

Ah....here we go. The bobbing and weaving and ducking for cover. The typical debate with a cornered Christian becomes a debate about the debate or debate about why they won't answer questions or respond to posts. Well done! You are following the trend line perfectly.
I have read through the posts again carefully. It is very clear you are ignoring the responses because your arguments are not mature enough to stand up to them. You seem especially frightened by the most detailed responses from some of the more articulate members. (not me)

That is my whole point, I do not want to "reap the social advantages from my community". I want life in the fast lane, I want to go fast, I want the high life and I am willing to risk it all to get it. You can keep your 9-5, your house in the suburbs with picket fence and a dog in the yard, I want the headlines, I want to be the one that eluded the FBI, INTERPOL and KGB.

If you are not a moral person then perhaps you will do immoral things as you have described. How does that prove there is a god-based moral system?

[JoeyKnothead]

You came to the regatta with a Ferrari, we are not defining morality, we are looking for a reason to be moral.

You seem to be attempting to claim morality is based in religion/god, but you fail to acknowledge the many immoral acts committed by religion/god.

That is my whole point, I do not want to "reap the social advantages from my community". I want life in the fast lane, I want to go fast, I want the high life and I am willing to risk it all to get it. You can keep your 9-5, your house in the suburbs with picket fence and a dog in the yard, I want the headlines, I want to be the one that eluded the FBI, INTERPOL and KGB. Does your reason for morality have nothing for me?

Apparently not. When shown how society has implemented 'morality' as a code to keep folks from harming others, you would rather find some other immoral act to try to counter. Where you are not in the least bit afraid of your consequences in the here and now you would be so frightened of them in the afterlife where your consequences cannot be shown to occur.

[Fallibleone]

This is just it. For many (usually atheists), there is no moral absolute. There is no justifying a belief that something is 'right' objectively. We've decided amongst ourselves what is to be 'right' and 'wrong' based on what is convenient for us.

That is the honest answer, however I don't for a second think that you believe that.

Tell me - why do you assume that I say things I don't mean? I found that comment to be more than a little condescending. It is exactly what I believe. Whether you believe me or not is not really important.

If you really believe what you said, why were you bothered when I belittled you?

Have you ever told anyone what you believe and then had that person ruffle your hair and say 'oh now come on, you do not believe that'? It is irritating because it gives the impression that the person doing the ruffling does not think you are competent enough to articulate or understand what you believe. When I say I believe something, I believe it.

Could it be that I violated an absolute moral obligation to respect you?

Why are you asking me? You're the one who believes in absolute morals. If you wish to analyse my response, ask yourself whether you violated the socially agreed 'good idea' of respecting others if you want the same for yourself.

Where do you get the right to be offended by my comment?

Despite your apparent desire to put words in my mouth, I am not 'offended' by your comment. I found it irritating. I found it irritating because it suggested that I lied, or that I don't know what I believe. What's the point in conversing with someone who will not accept that a given description of how you feel is actually how you feel?

I would not be evil if I kill and eat homeless people who would never be missed, you would not be evil if you kill and eat cows and pigs. You would not be evil if you fail to return a library book.

You seem to be reasoning this out as if you think it is news to me. That's right. You have it right. Since I do not believe in 'evil', it being a religious term, I do not believe that if you kill and eat homeless people you are evil, or that if I eat cows and pigs I am evil or that if I fail to return a library book I am evil. I hope we have the hang of this now. Fallibleone says 'no evil'.

Does Fallibleone say that murder and cannibalism are 'inconvenient'

No, olavisjo just really, really wants Fallibleone to say that murders and cannibalism are 'inconvenient'. Olavisjo can bet his life, though, that Fallibleone does not say that murderers and cannibals are 'evil', because as has already been explained, 'evil' is a religious term and Fallibleone is an atheist.

or does she have another word for it?

I tend to use the words 'murder' and 'cannibalism' when talking about murder and cannibalism. However, Fallibleone does note olavisjo's desire to have Fallibleone adopt the term 'inconvenient'. Sadly, Fallibleone is not inclined to give olavisjo the gift of an easy target.

Even children figure it out. All you have to do is ask "how would you like it if someone did that to you?"

But this is exactly what I was saying. You've just backed up my argument for me. We decide what is 'right' or 'wrong' based on what is convenient for us. As you say, children quickly work out that if they do not like someone punching them in the face, someone else probably would not like to be punched in the face either. If the child was punched in the face it would hurt, and most people don't like pain and try to avoid it. Added to that, if we lived in a society in which we were all running around punching each other in the face, we'd have a serious problem with hospital overcrowding and general distrust. Therefore we have decided that it is 'wrong' to punch someone in the face.

Could the decision have been made in the other direction? Could we have decided that it is 'right' to punch someone in the face?

If it was found to be of great benefit to punch people in the face, then yes. As there has been no such finding, people have collectively decided that it is 'wrong' to punch people in the face. It hurts, and we don't like that. As with anything else, there are exceptions, and this is why I argue that there is no absolute moral truth.

That is why 'punching people in the face is wrong' is an absolute moral truth, there is only one outcome. (The sport of boxing and hockey being an exception)

Your light-hearted exceptions defeat your own argument. Since there are exceptions to this 'absolute moral truth', 'punching people in the face is wrong' is not an absolute moral truth. Or are 'absolute moral truths' now not absolute? I can give you another exception if the ones you yourself supplied are not good enough.

For example, it is usually considered 'wrong' to kill someone for the fun of it. But if someone has a ticking noise coming from under their padded jacket and is sauntering towards a crowded market, there might be a general consensus that killing him before he can press the button would be a 'good' thing to do.

You just killed the clock salesman, who was delivering an antique clock to his client at the market. But no loss, he was not well liked anyway.

I guess subtleties don't work here. OK, I'll try again. Killing for fun is generally considered wrong, because we are mostly agreed that a society in which we all go about having a nice Saturday afternoon out by killing people is not a great idea. However, if a situation arises where it is better for the community at large if someone is taken out of the equation in order to save many others, suddenly killing can be argued to switch to 'right'. I was showing you an example of how morality is flexible and not objective or fixed as you say it is.

Yes we got the point, but we were just trying to get Fallibleone's goat.

Thanks for admitting it. I guess I know how seriously to take your arguments from now on.

It can be moral to kill, but it is never moral to murder.

Of course this presupposes that it can be agreed upon whether a killing is a murder or not. Is capital punishment a just killing or a murder? How is it that you can have people arguing on both sides (many of them Christians - you know - the ones who believe in 'absolute moral truths') if there exist 'absolute moral truths'?

There are many good reasons why people are moral, why they should be moral, and indeed why the have to be moral.

Name one reason that one should be moral.

Because it benefits society. Sorry, Cmass.

[Goat]

Yes we got the point, but we were just trying to get Fallibleone's goat.

Thanks for admitting it. I guess I know how seriously to take your arguments .

I am sorry, but you can't have me. I am taken by another.

[Fallibleone]

Yes we got the point, but we were just trying to get Fallibleone's goat.

Thanks for admitting it. I guess I know how seriously to take your arguments .

I am sorry, but you can't have me. I am taken by another.

There's just not enough goat to go round, that's the problem.

[realthinker]

Since you would rather characterize my previous response as a rant, rather than debate it on its merits, let's break this down.

You came to the regatta with a Ferrari, we are not defining morality, we are looking for a reason to be moral.

You should because of consequences if you don't. The consequences could include damage to your self esteem, feeling guilty or even jail time.

I can live with my self esteem, I can live with the guilt, I can live with the possibility of jail time. And I am going to embezzle $5 million and live the playboy lifestyle on the French Rivera or face the consequences, I am just not going to work 9 to 5 on the assembly line for the rest of my life.
So your reasons to be moral don't impress me, can you come up with even one good reason to be moral. And all this peace and goodwill towards mankind does not fly.

You do have a point. i cannot give you a reason to be moral. You, as an individual, may be better off to be immoral. But I think we have given a reason for people to be moral. We can, as a community, afford to let losers that wish to take advantage of us now and then. Certainly as a community we can afford it more than we can as an individual. Without morality that's what we'd have. If there were no morality, no benefit from being a community, we'd each be competing against every one of us. That means our lives would pretty much be only a chance game, and we've learned to be more than that.

You are repeating yourself and completely ignoring other posts that have clearly addressed your argument.

If I am ignoring them it is because they have not addressed my argument, but you would not know because you clearly still do not know what my argument is.

You're seeming to be a bit daft with this. You should be moral in your own interest because if you are not your interests will be marginalized. You will not have opportunity to reap the social advantages from your community.

That is my whole point, I do not want to "reap the social advantages from my community".

yet you do. You'd not have the opportunity to do that if there weren't a community for you to take advantage of. You'd be running from the next big guy around the corner. Or the little one waiting in the shadow to take what's yours. But because we have morality, we understand that most of us are not a threat. So we are easier marks for those who are immoral. But we can afford to be because our community will take care of us, to the extent it can. The most immoral acts we cannot make up for.

I want life in the fast lane, I want to go fast, I want the high life and I am willing to risk it all to get it. You can keep your 9-5, your house in the suburbs with picket fence and a dog in the yard, I want the headlines, I want to be the one that eluded the FBI, INTERPOL and KGB. Does your reason for morality have nothing for me?

If you don't get it after this, I don't know what more we can do. I gather from the responses that most here are on the same page, but perhaps haven't gone so deep in it to explain it as clearly as you may require.

You are all reading from the encyclopedia, I am reading "Silence of the Lambs".

Communities thrive on trust, expected behavior and anticipated consequences.

Yes, communities do, but individuals like myself don't.
"Catch Me If You Can".

Because of morality, because of community effort stemming from morality, [/b]I[/b] don't have to. We have law enforcement to do that. Because we have, as a people, evolved our understanding to include the idea that some behavior is worth expending personal effort to prevent so that the group, as a whole, cannot be threatened.

[olavisjo]

You have either not read the previous several pages of responses to you or you don't understand them.

That would be a false dichotomy.
The problem that I have with all those wonderful reasons for morality is that none of them are binding, there is no reason why anyone should subscribe to them, other than to get the favor and oblation of others, which is really not moral at all.
If the Athiest is right and life ends at the grave, then it does not mater if we lived our life as a Hitler or Mother Theresa. If we are not accountable to a god for our behaviour then it is possible for us to get away with things and our morality is only for show, our best interests are served by what we do in our hidden life.
To the Athist morality is just a convention, like traffic lights, if in the beginning they had made it so that we stop when the light is green and go when it is red it would have worked out just the same.
Without a god there can be no objective moral values. And without objective moral values everything is just opinion. Sure we can force others to comply with the opinions of the majority or the most powerful, but that does not make it 'right' to do so. For example in Nazi Germany it was moral to abuse Jews, can we say to them that they were wrong? That was their opinion, and their opinion is as good as ours.
When it comes to morality for the Atheist there is only one way to define it and that is the position held by Fallibleone.

We decide what is 'right' or 'wrong' based on what is convenient for us.

You seem especially frightened by the most detailed responses from some of the more articulate members. (not me)

Yeah, I am especially frightened by this articulate one, I have not got a clue as to what it means, do you?

Apparently not. When shown how society has implemented 'morality' as a code to keep folks from harming others, you would rather find some other immoral act to try to counter. Where you are not in the least bit afraid of your consequences in the here and now you would be so frightened of them in the afterlife where your consequences cannot be shown to occur.

But because we have morality...

You got it right, we do have morality, and without a god there would be no objective moral values therefore there is a god, and therefore you are not an Atheist.