Atheists are immoral!

[Ryokan]

At least according to the American Heritage dictionary...

http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html

atheism

NOUN:
1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

[Hawk one]

You think 1insane helped them with that definition?[/obvious question.]

[Ryokan]

Well, he might have done on this one :

http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/C0332000.html

Apparantly, Christian can mean "Showing a loving concern for others; humane."

So when someone says to you, "I'm a Christian, and you're an atheist" he may very well mean "I am a humane person who shows loving concern for others, while you're immoral."

ETA : But we already knew what they mean by it, don't we? It's just scary to see it in a dictionary...

[DarkMagician]

I hate people who use the wrong words for stuff. Like saying "immoral" when they should say "amoral", or saying "taser" when they should say "stun gun", or even saying "retard" when they should say "idiot."

Or my personal favorite, saying "creation scientist" when they should say "idiotic s:Dthead."

[H3LL]

When theist belief has morally justified:

Prolonged, sustained, repeated torture of children
Prolonged, sustained, repeated torture of the elderly
Prolonged, sustained, repeated torture of any convenient human target
Extreme cruelty
Genocide
Summary execution
Rape
Murder
Oppression and Control
Several wars and terrorism
Theft
Extortion
etc...etc...

and just about every abomination that can be imagined and then some.

I have a long way to go to catch up with their morality and have no intention of trying.

[SezMe]

I once was fascinated by the definition of Atheism and looked up the word in as many dictionaries as I could get my hands on (this, in the days before the Internet). I also looked at several different versions of the OED. It was fascinating to see the differences.

But, more to the point, one must remember that dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. In that light, the word atheism has often be used, in actual practice, as being synonymous with immorality. I don't like it, but there it is. Thus, the dictionary, defining as it does how words are used, not what we would like them to mean, is correct.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by H3LL
When theist belief has morally justified:

Prolonged, sustained, repeated torture of children
Prolonged, sustained, repeated torture of the elderly
Prolonged, sustained, repeated torture of any convenient human target
Extreme cruelty
Genocide
Summary execution
Rape
Murder
Oppression and Control
Several wars and terrorism
Theft
Extortion
etc...etc...

and just about every abomination that can be imagined and then some.

I have a long way to go to catch up with their morality and have no intention of trying.

Tell you what, Amigo. Mind if I park my posterior on that park bench you're sittin' on, and join you in your Morality Chase?

Latest word from this neck of the woods: the pastor I knew who was knocking his wife senseless has now returned to the church. He's been welcomed with open arms. He'll likely be teaching Sunday School classes pretty soon.

I keep thinking people will learn. And they don't.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Ryokan
At least according to the American Heritage dictionary...

http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html

atheism

NOUN:
1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.
That particular definition is the archaic usage of atheism.

Lots of other dictionaries have more precise definitions of atheism, see for example the selection provided at Atheism.about.com - What is the definition of atheism (http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm).

[Throg]

Originally posted by Ryokan
At least according to the American Heritage dictionary...

http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html

atheism

NOUN:
1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

Note that immorality is definition 2. of atheism and is clearly distinguished from definitions 1a. and 1b. Similarly Godlessness as used in definition 2. does not mean having no god(s).

This is, or at least was, a valid definition. As an atheist myself who considers morality very important I consider it an unfortunate definition. It is also a definition which is used much less these days than it once was. Perhaps it will soon be possible to identify this definition as archaic.

Apparantly, Christian can mean "Showing a loving concern for others; humane."

This is a similar case but note particularly that it is the adjective Christian that is definied in this way, not the noun, so "that was very christian of you" can mean "that was loving and humane of you" but "I am a Christian" does not mean "I am loving and humane."

[phildonnia]

"Wealthy" and "Good-looking" have flattering meanings too, but that doesn't mean that calling myself either of these things has any effect.

For that matter, if I say that someone "acted with christian charity", then we all know what that means, even if the someone happens to be a flaming atheist.

"Atheist" means "immoral" in the same way that "communist" means "anti-American" or "evolutionist" means "scientist". It's a usage derived from sloppy thinking, but a usage nonetheless, and one noted by the dictionary.

[Darat]

Originally posted by H3LL
When theist belief has morally justified:

Prolonged, sustained, repeated torture of children
Prolonged, sustained, repeated torture of the elderly
Prolonged, sustained, repeated torture of any convenient human target
Extreme cruelty
Genocide
Summary execution
Rape
Murder
Oppression and Control
Several wars and terrorism
Theft
Extortion
etc...etc...

and just about every abomination that can be imagined and then some.

I have a long way to go to catch up with their morality and have no intention of trying.

But on the other hand ideologies that have no morality "from a god" have also managed the same; I just put it down to human nature.

[CFLarsen]

If atheists are immoral, why aren't they all in jail?

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If atheists are immoral, why aren't they all in jail? Because immoral isn't necessarily illegal.

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If atheists are immoral, why aren't they all in jail?

Oh that's an easy one to answer, religious people who act in such an immoral way as to break the law are obviously more dangerous to society then an atheist who breaks the law.

Consider for example a religious person who is Christian and commits an act that is unlawful and immoral, say theft. They have committed an act that they know will condemn them to an eternity of suffering, yet even with that deterrent they acted in an immoral manner. If that deterrent (eternity of suffering) is not enough to keep them on the straight and narrow then what will? They need to be locked up or indeed killed before they do anything else even more immoral.

(Please note the above is a silly, silly argument made as a counter point to the equally silly, silly argument "But if you don’t believe in God there is no reason for you to be moral.")

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Because immoral isn't necessarily illegal.

I believe some Christians think it should be.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
Oh that's an easy one to answer, religious people who act in such an immoral way as to break the law are obviously more dangerous to society then an atheist who breaks the law.

But religious people can't be immoral, can they? Their fear of God should keep them in check.

That's the whole idea, isn't it?

If it doesn't....well...what's the use of having a religion, then?

[Throg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But religious people can't be immoral, can they? Their fear of God should keep them in check.

That's the whole idea, isn't it?

If it doesn't....well...what's the use of having a religion, then?

Wasn't Satan religious, in the sense that he believed in God (difficult not to when you've met him face-to-face I guess) and unless he was plain stupid he must have feared him. If I believed in God, I'd be scared.

[fishbob]

CF Larson said: "I believe some Christians think it should be."

Here is one source (http://www.seekgod.ca/cnp.a.htm)
Howard Ahmanson, Jr.- CNP Member 1984-85, 1988, Board of Governors 1996, 1998. President of Fieldstead and Co.; Fieldstead Foundation; chair of the California Independent Business PAC. Ahmanson is an Orange County financier who inherited Home Savings of America from his father, has spent millions promoting Religious Right candidates, first in California and then nationwide. Ahmanson has been a major contributor to the Capitol Resource Institute, 6 the California political front of Focus on the Family; the Western Center for Law and Religious Freedom, the Reason Foundation, 7 (an offshoot of Reason Public Policy Institute (RPPI) 8. and the California Prolife Council. Inc.

Ahmanson helped found The Rutherford Institute 9 and is a major donor to Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation; The Ahmanson Foundation was a contributor to the Council on Foreign Relations 10 (CFR)(1990-1993) See David Rockefeller

A Board member for the Claremont Institute, 11 wife, Roberta Green, also a member of Claremont Institute board. Newport Beach, CA.; Ahmanson also served 23 years (retired 1995) on the board of the Chalcedon Institute 12 in Vallecito, California, which Newsweek (Feb. 2, 1981) accurately identified as the think tank of the Religious Right. The Chalcedon Institute, to which Ahmanson has contributed over a million dollars, was founded in 1965, perpetuates the Dominionist/Reconstructionist/Kingdom Now beliefs of founder Rev. Rousas John Rushdoony who was also a member of the CNP. Rushdoony, who died February 8, 2001, is known as the "father of Christian Reconstructionism," which is the misguided belief that Christians should have dominion over all earthly affairs and nations and the law would be according to Old Testament laws, which includes the death penalty for many infractions.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If atheists are immoral, why aren't they all in jail?

Give the religious right and their cronies in government some time, I am sure they are working on it.

[wahrheit]

Heard quite some criticism about wikipedia lately, but I would certainly prefer their definition of atheism (emphasize mine):

Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of any deity.

In antiquity, Epicureanism had aspects of atheism, but it disappeared from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity began gaining influence. During the Age of Enlightenment, atheism re-emerged as an accusation against those who questioned the religious status quo, but by the late 18th century it had become the avowed position of a growing minority. By the 20th century, atheism had become the most common position among scientists, rationalists, and humanists.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But religious people can't be immoral, can they?
HAHAHA, I think that might be the signature I was looking for. I love irony.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Darat
But on the other hand ideologies that have no morality "from a god" have also managed the same; I just put it down to human nature.

How can atheist ideologies have no morals and morally justify horrendous acts? The theists can't have it both ways.

What ideologies are you referring to?

If it is the communist regimes, they are a recent tick of the clock and are hardly in the same area of morally justified "prolonged, sustained, repeated torture" perpetrated for hundreds of years.

Nor do I think it common that children and the elderley were specifically singled out and targeted, but victims of a wider program.

More to the point, few people would willingly and proudly align themselves with the atrocities perpetrated by communist dictators, whereas many are delighted, proud and wish others to join organisations that maintain the identical dogma and belief that justified such atrocities and have remained unchanged for hundreds of years.

[Beleth]

I have always used the word "moral" as meaning "expressing a system of right and wrong behavior whose source is a religious power" and the word "ethical" as meaning "expressing a system of right and wrong behavior whose source is not a religious power".

So yes, by that definition, atheists are immoral because they are not following a God-given system of right and wrong.

But that doesn't mean that they are unethical.

In the same vein, fundamentalists are unethical (since to them there are no standards of right behavior not passed down by God) but not necessarily immoral.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But religious people can't be immoral, can they? Their fear of God should keep them in check.

That's the whole idea, isn't it?

If it doesn't....well...what's the use of having a religion, then?

Gee, one might think that would be a terrible idea. After all, without a concept of God, how could you bring yourself to understand such things as Truth, or Fact. How would you ever understand such things as Absolutes? What would your basis be for such things as compassion, which we all know skeptics, agnostics, and atheists lack in spades.

Right?:p

[Brown]

As used in a conventional sense, "atheist" is still used today to mean "a bad person."

Case in point: On March 2 of this year, the Ten Commandments cases were argued to the Supreme Court. Atheists were trotted out as the booger men, the party poopers, the trouble-makers.

Justice Kennedy: "This is a classic avert your eyes. If an atheist walked by, he can avert his eyes, he can think about something else." Why assume that those who object are atheists? Could not Jews object? Or Hindus? Or Native Americans? Or Christians who feel that the government has no business promoting religious belief? Surely stinking atheists aren't the only ones who would object.

Justice Scalia asked whether a state could erect a "Religion is the Foundations of our Institutions" monument, but remarked "But there are atheists who disagree with that intensely." Why atheists? Why not historians? Why not judges? Why not constitutional scholars? Certainly atheists are not the only ones who would assert that such a monument is preposterous.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Beleth
I have always used the word "moral" as meaning "expressing a system of right and wrong behavior whose source is a religious power" and the word "ethical" as meaning "expressing a system of right and wrong behavior whose source is not a religious power".

So yes, by that definition, atheists are immoral because they are not following a God-given system of right and wrong.

But that doesn't mean that they are unethical.

In the same vein, fundamentalists are unethical (since to them there are no standards of right behavior not passed down by God) but not necessarily immoral.

I liked this until I checked a bit more.

Ethical is directly related to a profession. Atheism is not normally a profesion nor is fundamentalism.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Why is it that many societies with a low percentage of religious believers and a high percentage of non-believers (called 'atheists' by the believers) have much, much lover rates of crime and corruption than societies that have a strong religious following?

[Minkster]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
Why is it that many societies with a low percentage of religious believers and a high percentage of non-believers (called 'atheists' by the believers) have much, much lover rates of crime and corruption than societies that have a strong religious following?

Is that true?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Brown
As used in a conventional sense, "atheist" is still used today to mean "a bad person."

Case in point: On March 2 of this year, the Ten Commandments cases were argued to the Supreme Court. Atheists were trotted out as the booger men, the party poopers, the trouble-makers.

Justice Kennedy: "This is a classic avert your eyes. If an atheist walked by, he can avert his eyes, he can think about something else." Why assume that those who object are atheists? Could not Jews object? Or Hindus? Or Native Americans? Or Christians who feel that the government has no business promoting religious belief? Surely stinking atheists aren't the only ones who would object.

Justice Scalia asked whether a state could erect a "Religion is the Foundations of our Institutions" monument, but remarked "But there are atheists who disagree with that intensely." Why atheists? Why not historians? Why not judges? Why not constitutional scholars? Certainly atheists are not the only ones who would assert that such a monument is preposterous.

You known damn well that, in the US, you are an OK person, as long as you have a religious faith.

George Bush Sr. wasn't kidding, you know. And Dubya gave government money to faith based organizations.

[Brown]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You known damn well that, in the US, you are an OK person, as long as you have a religious faith.Well, not exactly. It's closer to the reverse of that.

The attitude of the religious right is: If you are an atheist, you are automatically a bad person. Nothing will change that. You can behave 100 percent morally, and you can be an intelligent and upstanding citizen, but it will make no difference. If you don't believe in some sort of deity, you are evil. Period. End of discussion.

If you believe in a deity, however, you are not necessarily good. The sonsabitches who flew airplanes into buildings believed in a deity, but they believed in a false deity (according to little Bush). Also even if you are a believer in a higher legitimate power, you still might be bad; but belief gives you at least an opportunity to be good. Because atheists do not believe in a higher power, they have foregone this opportunity, and are automatically bad.

The "reasoning" is similar with homosexuals. Homosexuals are bad. Period. End of discussion. Heterosexuals are not necessarily good, but have the opportunity to be so.

There is a name for the process of unreasonably judging a person to be inferior based upon a single characteristic such as race, religion or sexual orientation. It is called "bigotry."

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Brown
Well, not exactly. It's closer to the reverse of that.

The attitude of the religious right is: If you are an atheist, you are automatically a bad person. Nothing will change that. You can behave 100 percent morally, and you can be an intelligent and upstanding citizen, but it will make no difference. If you don't believe in some sort of deity, you are evil. Period. End of discussion.

If you believe in a deity, however, you are not necessarily good. The sonsabitches who flew airplanes into buildings believed in a deity, but they believed in a false deity (according to little Bush). Also even if you are a believer in a higher legitimate power, you still might be bad; but belief gives you at least an opportunity to be good. Because atheists do not believe in a higher power, they have foregone this opportunity, and are automatically bad.

The "reasoning" is similar with homosexuals. Homosexuals are bad. Period. End of discussion. Heterosexuals are not necessarily good, but have the opportunity to be so.

There is a name for the process of unreasonably judging a person to be inferior based upon a single characteristic such as race, religion or sexual orientation. It is called "bigotry."

:clap:

bigotry is ego, ego is fear

[Kopji]

thats ok who cares anyway
after days of nonstop pope-a-media
I'M BECOMING CATHOLIC!
twich twich
every channel i turn
POPE
cnn - pope
cbs - pope
nbc - pope
fox - pope the great
amc - 'the miracle of the bells'
weather channel - weather in rome for visiting dead pope
history channel - guns in early america (there's a relief)
erk
all hail the dead pope
SLAP!
ohm - myfathercanplaydomoniosbetterthanyourfathercan
SLAP SLAP!
there are no atheists
only people the great pope did not reach yet
small statue of mary - check
cross with dead jesus - check
incense - check
pope books - check
i am god
oops
i am good
oops
i am dog

[Ossai]

Roadtoad
I keep thinking people will learn. And they don't.

You’ll never go broke overestimating the stupidity of the common person.
Quote but I’m not sure from whom.

Ossai

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Brown
Well, not exactly. It's closer to the reverse of that.

The attitude of the religious right is: If you are an atheist, you are automatically a bad person. Nothing will change that. You can behave 100 percent morally, and you can be an intelligent and upstanding citizen, but it will make no difference. If you don't believe in some sort of deity, you are evil. Period. End of discussion.

If you believe in a deity, however, you are not necessarily good. The sonsabitches who flew airplanes into buildings believed in a deity, but they believed in a false deity (according to little Bush). Also even if you are a believer in a higher legitimate power, you still might be bad; but belief gives you at least an opportunity to be good. Because atheists do not believe in a higher power, they have foregone this opportunity, and are automatically bad.

Yes, you're right. I'm just ahead of my time, that's all. It won't be long before people who are religious in the US are automatically Christian. The rest are the devil's spawn.

Originally posted by Brown
The "reasoning" is similar with homosexuals. Homosexuals are bad. Period. End of discussion. Heterosexuals are not necessarily good, but have the opportunity to be so.

There is a name for the process of unreasonably judging a person to be inferior based upon a single characteristic such as race, religion or sexual orientation. It is called "bigotry."

Funny you should say that. Yesterday, I watched "The Green Mile", where this is from:

Burt Hammersmith, John Coffey's lawyer:

"We had us a dog. No particular breed, but gentle. Ready to lick your hand or fetch a stick. Just a sweet mongrel, you know the kind. In many way, a good mongrel dog is like your negro. You get to know it, and often you get to love it. It is of no particular use, but you keep it around because you think it loves you. If you're lucky, Mr. Edgecomb, you never have to find out any different. My wife and I were not so lucky. Caleb? Come here for a second. (the son hesistates, ashamed) Please, son. (we see his son has a horrible scar on one side of his face) He has the one eye. I suppose he's lucky not to be blind. We get down on our knees and thank God for that much at least. Right Caleb? Okay, go on in now. That dog attacked my boy for no reason. Just got it into his mind one day. Same with John Coffey. He was sorry afterwards, of that I have no doubt. But those little girls stayed raped and murdered nonetheless. Maybe he's never done it before--my dog never bit before, but I didn't concern myself with that. I went out there with my rifle and grabbed his collar and blew his brains out."

Paul Edgecomb: "I'm sorry for your trouble."

Burt: "I'm as enlightened as the next man, Mr. Edgecomb. I would not bring back slavery for all the tea in China. I believe we have to be humane and generous in our efforts to solve the race problem. But we have to remember that the negro will bite if he gets the chance, just like a mongrel dog will bite if it crosses its mind to do so. Is Coffey guilty? Yes, he is. Don't you doubt it, and don't you turn your back on him. You might get away with it once or even a hundred times. But in the end, you'll get bit."
The Green Mile (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120689/)

Some things don't change.

[TragicMonkey]

You know, if I caught my own lawyer talking like that about me, my teeth would wind up meeting in the middle of his throat. "How's it feel to be proven right? It feels like drowning in your own blood, I guess. Whoops! Have a nice day."

I guess you can count me among the immoral atheists for that.

[clarsct]

Originally posted by H3LL
I liked this until I checked a bit more.

Ethical is directly related to a profession. Atheism is not normally a profesion nor is fundamentalism.

My Ethics prof would disagree with you. Many people associate Ethics with a profession, Medical Ethics, etc, but Ethics, proper, is the study of the system society uses to judge. We all judge, as we've heard a number of times, but what is your yardstick? A person could say "Whatever is good for me is good." and be ethical. It's called Ultimate Ethical Egoism, and it is ethical because it is a system. As long as you stick to the system of rules, you're ethical. Moral is a judgement of the actions themselves. Basically, Ethics is about being just, morals are about being right. Most christians are ethical, that is to say, they ascribe to a system of rules. Many are not moral in the sense that they do not examine those rules for rightness or wrongness. They do not judge whether or not the rules apply, or if extenuating circumstances apply.

If you stole to feed your baby, too bad. You're guilty. That's ethical. Is it moral? That's a different argument. As far as atheism being immoral, I would think atheism has as much to do with morality as the color of your shoes does.

On the other hand, you must understand that some christians are truly baffled about how we make moral and ethical judgements. What do we base them on? After all, we don't have a little book of rules, now do we? I think it sad that people do things just because they're told to, not because they've thought about it with human sympathy and empathy. If you haven't thought about what you're doing, then how do you know what you're doing? They go through the motions with a smug satisfaction of knowing they are right, then go home and scream at their kids, beat the wife and kick the dog. (At least in one case I know of, divorced now.) I know I'm kind of ranting here, but some of this has bothered me. It seems to me the true evil of religion is it allows people to shelve their difficult topics without having to think them through. Anytime people act without thinking their action through, you have a potential for true evilness. Just my point of view, I guess. Sorry for the rant at the end, here. I just hope it gets people thinking.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by clarsct
*Snip*..... I just hope it gets people thinking.

It did. Thanks.

[Flex]

So usage varies over time. So what? I'm sure if you mixed up the terms Atheist and Immoral today you would get a few funny looks.

Try these for size:

"You Atheist BA..ARD!" or
"I'm a practising immoralist."

They don't have quite the punch.

Anyone look up the meaning of Catholic recently? ;)


Cheers,

-Flex

[jimmygun]

I am an athiest and moral too. If you say I am not moral again I will kill you and eat your children!

[Bruce]

Originally posted by jimmygun
I am an athiest and moral too. If you say I am not moral again I will kill you and eat your children!

Killing children is not immoral as long as you eat them too.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Bruce
Killing children is not immoral as long as you eat them too.

Wouldn't it depend on how you cook them as well? It would be an aesthetic crime of the worst sort to just char them on a grill. Or serve them with the wrong wine. Or on Wonder Bread with a Kraft singles piece of Almost-Cheese.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Bruce
Killing children is not immoral as long as you eat them too.
Just remember not to seethe the kid in its mother's milk. That really pisses God off.

I prefer my children barbecued, with a light honey glazing, served with grilled vegetables and a dark beer.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Wouldn't it depend on how you cook them as well? It would be an aesthetic crime of the worst sort to just char them on a grill. Or serve them with the wrong wine. Or on Wonder Bread with a Kraft singles piece of Almost-Cheese.

TM, you are one sick puppy.

I mean, Wonder Bread and Kraft Singles?!?!

That's just wrong.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Beleth
I have always used the word "moral" as meaning "expressing a system of right and wrong behavior whose source is a religious power" and the word "ethical" as meaning "expressing a system of right and wrong behavior whose source is not a religious power".

So yes, by that definition, atheists are immoral because they are not following a God-given system of right and wrong.

But that doesn't mean that they are unethical.

In the same vein, fundamentalists are unethical (since to them there are no standards of right behavior not passed down by God) but not necessarily immoral.
thank you, you saved me from having to type basically the exact same post.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
TM, you are one sick puppy.

I mean, Wonder Bread and Kraft Singles?!?!

That's just wrong.

I'm sure there are Kosher methods for preparing children.