What do Atheists believe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some religious people I know have a hard time believing a person can be moral without guidance from an authority. That fear of god drives behavior. They simply can't understand why anyone would behave ethically without belief. As people have posted, being an atheist entails behaving as if this is all there is. For the atheists I know, it's doing our best to make this world a better place today because things won't be better in a magical place that we don't get to until we die.

And if you fail at it, there isn't a higher power that will make it right for the people you wronged, or fix the planet, or forgive your sins. You have to do as well as you can, now, no takebacks.

This is an honest question, and something I’ve always wondered. What about the people who decide, screw it, there’s no punishment so I’ll just steal and murder and die rich and happy?

They do this anyway. I'm glad it makes you feel better that they'll get punished later, but my position is that it's up to the rest of us to deal with them now. Plenty of those people are religious, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is it. All we have is each other. Therefore, we ought to make this the best of all possible worlds, and help each other to achieve it.

There is no future reward for the suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to end it now. There is also no future punishment for those who cause suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to get them to change their ways, or limit their ability to cause suffering.

And ... cycle of life, science, amazed that we exist at all -- that stuff.

NP here. I've posted before and have described myself as agnostic.

Here's the problem with what you've posted: It all depends on the greater collective to have some sense of obligation to protect those who are suffering and bring about justice, stop those who cause the suffering.

Religion has its flaws, for sure. But I'm not sure atheism is much better. I do know a few very moral atheists. But they have a strong sense of obligation, so they really hold themselves to their morals. I know a lot of atheists who think they have morals and values, but when it comes down to choices, they ALWAYS choose the path that is self-serving, no matter who they hurt in the process. They have no sense of obligation to uphold vows or oaths. It really is all about what serves them best at any given time and what they can get away with. They talk a good game about morals and values, but their system of ethics is kind of like the notion of financial companies regulating themselves: they'll do the "right" thing so long as it is in their interest and they see that the other options will have negative consequences, but if they see no net negative consequence to doing the wrong thing or skirting the edge of right, they'll go for it.

My point is, as much harm as has been done in the name of religion, I'm not so sure that pure atheism would be better for society unless there is a strong sense of obligation to the larger whole. There are some cultures in which there is a strong sense of duty to others that is ingrained in people from youth on up, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I know atheists who do have a strong sense of obligation and internal moral compass, but I also know atheists who basically see morality as a suggestion, not a rule; they do what they want. I know one person in particular who is like this. This person is very self-righteous and will use any opportunity to criticize religion or point out how immoral a religious person is, but this person is kind of a liar and a cheater.

I think the more important question isn't "what do Atheists believe"; it's, what holds your feet to the fire when it comes to actually making ethical choices? Most everyone, religious and nonreligious, has a view of right and wrong. The real question is whether or not they do the right thing even when it runs counter to their own self-interest. And what makes them do that? For many religious people, religion is important not just as a framework for morality and ethical behavior but also as a motivator -- as sort of a cosmic system of justice. It's one thing to say we have a justice system for crime. But there's a lot of unethical behavior that isn't criminal (nor should it be). Most of it falls within the realm of interpersonal relations, be it social or professional.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I wondered. I think everyone knows atheists don’t believe in God. I just wondered what philosophy or guidelines or morals/values atheism entails.

Still, it doesn’t seem like much to “embrace” with atheism. Atheists want to alleviate suffering on earth but I guess they each do so individually in small ways because there’s no atheists outreach or aid organizations, apparently.

You're kidding, right? Every single organization that is not religious is not religious: USAID, UNICEF, etc., etc..
Atheists do not need a statement of non-belief in God to participate in an organization; this is the point that believers never seem to quite get. Atheists are not that interested in God. It's exactly like asking whether people believe in Zeus. It's irrelevant to anything we're actually doing in the organization, and kind of a bizarre non-sequitur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some religious people I know have a hard time believing a person can be moral without guidance from an authority. That fear of god drives behavior. They simply can't understand why anyone would behave ethically without belief. As people have posted, being an atheist entails behaving as if this is all there is. For the atheists I know, it's doing our best to make this world a better place today because things won't be better in a magical place that we don't get to until we die.

And if you fail at it, there isn't a higher power that will make it right for the people you wronged, or fix the planet, or forgive your sins. You have to do as well as you can, now, no takebacks.

This is an honest question, and something I’ve always wondered. What about the people who decide, screw it, there’s no punishment so I’ll just steal and murder and die rich and happy?

There's no evidence that atheists steal and murder more. Perhaps the attitude described above comes from religious people, including clergy, who speculate or make pronouncements about the behavior of atheists without knowing whether it's accurate.

Also, there IS a punishment for believers and non-believers alike -- if you get caught in a crime, the criminal justice system can punish you, irrespective of religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is it. All we have is each other. Therefore, we ought to make this the best of all possible worlds, and help each other to achieve it.

There is no future reward for the suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to end it now. There is also no future punishment for those who cause suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to get them to change their ways, or limit their ability to cause suffering.

And ... cycle of life, science, amazed that we exist at all -- that stuff.

NP here. I've posted before and have described myself as agnostic.

Here's the problem with what you've posted: It all depends on the greater collective to have some sense of obligation to protect those who are suffering and bring about justice, stop those who cause the suffering.

Religion has its flaws, for sure. But I'm not sure atheism is much better. I do know a few very moral atheists. But they have a strong sense of obligation, so they really hold themselves to their morals. I know a lot of atheists who think they have morals and values, but when it comes down to choices, they ALWAYS choose the path that is self-serving, no matter who they hurt in the process. They have no sense of obligation to uphold vows or oaths. It really is all about what serves them best at any given time and what they can get away with. They talk a good game about morals and values, but their system of ethics is kind of like the notion of financial companies regulating themselves: they'll do the "right" thing so long as it is in their interest and they see that the other options will have negative consequences, but if they see no net negative consequence to doing the wrong thing or skirting the edge of right, they'll go for it.

My point is, as much harm as has been done in the name of religion, I'm not so sure that pure atheism would be better for society unless there is a strong sense of obligation to the larger whole. There are some cultures in which there is a strong sense of duty to others that is ingrained in people from youth on up, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I know atheists who do have a strong sense of obligation and internal moral compass, but I also know atheists who basically see morality as a suggestion, not a rule; they do what they want. I know one person in particular who is like this. This person is very self-righteous and will use any opportunity to criticize religion or point out how immoral a religious person is, but this person is kind of a liar and a cheater.

I think the more important question isn't "what do Atheists believe"; it's, what holds your feet to the fire when it comes to actually making ethical choices? Most everyone, religious and nonreligious, has a view of right and wrong. The real question is whether or not they do the right thing even when it runs counter to their own self-interest. And what makes them do that? For many religious people, religion is important not just as a framework for morality and ethical behavior but also as a motivator -- as sort of a cosmic system of justice. It's one thing to say we have a justice system for crime. But there's a lot of unethical behavior that isn't criminal (nor should it be). Most of it falls within the realm of interpersonal relations, be it social or professional.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I wondered. I think everyone knows atheists don’t believe in God. I just wondered what philosophy or guidelines or morals/values atheism entails.

Still, it doesn’t seem like much to “embrace” with atheism. Atheists want to alleviate suffering on earth but I guess they each do so individually in small ways because there’s no atheists outreach or aid organizations, apparently.

You're kidding, right? Every single organization that is not religious is not religious: USAID, UNICEF, etc., etc..
Atheists do not need a statement of non-belief in God to participate in an organization; this is the point that believers never seem to quite get. Atheists are not that interested in God. It's exactly like asking whether people believe in Zeus. It's irrelevant to anything we're actually doing in the organization, and kind of a bizarre non-sequitur.

Those organizations are comprised of and funded by atheists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is it. All we have is each other. Therefore, we ought to make this the best of all possible worlds, and help each other to achieve it.

There is no future reward for the suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to end it now. There is also no future punishment for those who cause suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to get them to change their ways, or limit their ability to cause suffering.

And ... cycle of life, science, amazed that we exist at all -- that stuff.

NP here. I've posted before and have described myself as agnostic.

Here's the problem with what you've posted: It all depends on the greater collective to have some sense of obligation to protect those who are suffering and bring about justice, stop those who cause the suffering.

Religion has its flaws, for sure. But I'm not sure atheism is much better. I do know a few very moral atheists. But they have a strong sense of obligation, so they really hold themselves to their morals. I know a lot of atheists who think they have morals and values, but when it comes down to choices, they ALWAYS choose the path that is self-serving, no matter who they hurt in the process. They have no sense of obligation to uphold vows or oaths. It really is all about what serves them best at any given time and what they can get away with. They talk a good game about morals and values, but their system of ethics is kind of like the notion of financial companies regulating themselves: they'll do the "right" thing so long as it is in their interest and they see that the other options will have negative consequences, but if they see no net negative consequence to doing the wrong thing or skirting the edge of right, they'll go for it.

My point is, as much harm as has been done in the name of religion, I'm not so sure that pure atheism would be better for society unless there is a strong sense of obligation to the larger whole. There are some cultures in which there is a strong sense of duty to others that is ingrained in people from youth on up, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I know atheists who do have a strong sense of obligation and internal moral compass, but I also know atheists who basically see morality as a suggestion, not a rule; they do what they want. I know one person in particular who is like this. This person is very self-righteous and will use any opportunity to criticize religion or point out how immoral a religious person is, but this person is kind of a liar and a cheater.

I think the more important question isn't "what do Atheists believe"; it's, what holds your feet to the fire when it comes to actually making ethical choices? Most everyone, religious and nonreligious, has a view of right and wrong. The real question is whether or not they do the right thing even when it runs counter to their own self-interest. And what makes them do that? For many religious people, religion is important not just as a framework for morality and ethical behavior but also as a motivator -- as sort of a cosmic system of justice. It's one thing to say we have a justice system for crime. But there's a lot of unethical behavior that isn't criminal (nor should it be). Most of it falls within the realm of interpersonal relations, be it social or professional.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I wondered. I think everyone knows atheists don’t believe in God. I just wondered what philosophy or guidelines or morals/values atheism entails.

Still, it doesn’t seem like much to “embrace” with atheism. Atheists want to alleviate suffering on earth but I guess they each do so individually in small ways because there’s no atheists outreach or aid organizations, apparently.

You're kidding, right? Every single organization that is not religious is not religious: USAID, UNICEF, etc., etc..
Atheists do not need a statement of non-belief in God to participate in an organization; this is the point that believers never seem to quite get. Atheists are not that interested in God. It's exactly like asking whether people believe in Zeus. It's irrelevant to anything we're actually doing in the organization, and kind of a bizarre non-sequitur.

Those organizations are comprised of and funded by atheists?

I'm an athiest who funds UNICEF and other aid organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is it. All we have is each other. Therefore, we ought to make this the best of all possible worlds, and help each other to achieve it.

There is no future reward for the suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to end it now. There is also no future punishment for those who cause suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to get them to change their ways, or limit their ability to cause suffering.

And ... cycle of life, science, amazed that we exist at all -- that stuff.

NP here. I've posted before and have described myself as agnostic.

Here's the problem with what you've posted: It all depends on the greater collective to have some sense of obligation to protect those who are suffering and bring about justice, stop those who cause the suffering.

Religion has its flaws, for sure. But I'm not sure atheism is much better. I do know a few very moral atheists. But they have a strong sense of obligation, so they really hold themselves to their morals. I know a lot of atheists who think they have morals and values, but when it comes down to choices, they ALWAYS choose the path that is self-serving, no matter who they hurt in the process. They have no sense of obligation to uphold vows or oaths. It really is all about what serves them best at any given time and what they can get away with. They talk a good game about morals and values, but their system of ethics is kind of like the notion of financial companies regulating themselves: they'll do the "right" thing so long as it is in their interest and they see that the other options will have negative consequences, but if they see no net negative consequence to doing the wrong thing or skirting the edge of right, they'll go for it.

My point is, as much harm as has been done in the name of religion, I'm not so sure that pure atheism would be better for society unless there is a strong sense of obligation to the larger whole. There are some cultures in which there is a strong sense of duty to others that is ingrained in people from youth on up, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I know atheists who do have a strong sense of obligation and internal moral compass, but I also know atheists who basically see morality as a suggestion, not a rule; they do what they want. I know one person in particular who is like this. This person is very self-righteous and will use any opportunity to criticize religion or point out how immoral a religious person is, but this person is kind of a liar and a cheater.

I think the more important question isn't "what do Atheists believe"; it's, what holds your feet to the fire when it comes to actually making ethical choices? Most everyone, religious and nonreligious, has a view of right and wrong. The real question is whether or not they do the right thing even when it runs counter to their own self-interest. And what makes them do that? For many religious people, religion is important not just as a framework for morality and ethical behavior but also as a motivator -- as sort of a cosmic system of justice. It's one thing to say we have a justice system for crime. But there's a lot of unethical behavior that isn't criminal (nor should it be). Most of it falls within the realm of interpersonal relations, be it social or professional.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I wondered. I think everyone knows atheists don’t believe in God. I just wondered what philosophy or guidelines or morals/values atheism entails.

Still, it doesn’t seem like much to “embrace” with atheism. Atheists want to alleviate suffering on earth but I guess they each do so individually in small ways because there’s no atheists outreach or aid organizations, apparently.

You're kidding, right? Every single organization that is not religious is not religious: USAID, UNICEF, etc., etc..
Atheists do not need a statement of non-belief in God to participate in an organization; this is the point that believers never seem to quite get. Atheists are not that interested in God. It's exactly like asking whether people believe in Zeus. It's irrelevant to anything we're actually doing in the organization, and kind of a bizarre non-sequitur.

Those organizations are comprised of and funded by atheists?

They are secular organizations that don’t discriminate based on religious beliefs. Isn’t that good enough? It would be kind of weird to exclude the religious...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is it. All we have is each other. Therefore, we ought to make this the best of all possible worlds, and help each other to achieve it.

There is no future reward for the suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to end it now. There is also no future punishment for those who cause suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to get them to change their ways, or limit their ability to cause suffering.

And ... cycle of life, science, amazed that we exist at all -- that stuff.

NP here. I've posted before and have described myself as agnostic.

Here's the problem with what you've posted: It all depends on the greater collective to have some sense of obligation to protect those who are suffering and bring about justice, stop those who cause the suffering.

Religion has its flaws, for sure. But I'm not sure atheism is much better. I do know a few very moral atheists. But they have a strong sense of obligation, so they really hold themselves to their morals. I know a lot of atheists who think they have morals and values, but when it comes down to choices, they ALWAYS choose the path that is self-serving, no matter who they hurt in the process. They have no sense of obligation to uphold vows or oaths. It really is all about what serves them best at any given time and what they can get away with. They talk a good game about morals and values, but their system of ethics is kind of like the notion of financial companies regulating themselves: they'll do the "right" thing so long as it is in their interest and they see that the other options will have negative consequences, but if they see no net negative consequence to doing the wrong thing or skirting the edge of right, they'll go for it.

My point is, as much harm as has been done in the name of religion, I'm not so sure that pure atheism would be better for society unless there is a strong sense of obligation to the larger whole. There are some cultures in which there is a strong sense of duty to others that is ingrained in people from youth on up, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I know atheists who do have a strong sense of obligation and internal moral compass, but I also know atheists who basically see morality as a suggestion, not a rule; they do what they want. I know one person in particular who is like this. This person is very self-righteous and will use any opportunity to criticize religion or point out how immoral a religious person is, but this person is kind of a liar and a cheater.

I think the more important question isn't "what do Atheists believe"; it's, what holds your feet to the fire when it comes to actually making ethical choices? Most everyone, religious and nonreligious, has a view of right and wrong. The real question is whether or not they do the right thing even when it runs counter to their own self-interest. And what makes them do that? For many religious people, religion is important not just as a framework for morality and ethical behavior but also as a motivator -- as sort of a cosmic system of justice. It's one thing to say we have a justice system for crime. But there's a lot of unethical behavior that isn't criminal (nor should it be). Most of it falls within the realm of interpersonal relations, be it social or professional.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I wondered. I think everyone knows atheists don’t believe in God. I just wondered what philosophy or guidelines or morals/values atheism entails.

Still, it doesn’t seem like much to “embrace” with atheism. Atheists want to alleviate suffering on earth but I guess they each do so individually in small ways because there’s no atheists outreach or aid organizations, apparently.

You're kidding, right? Every single organization that is not religious is not religious: USAID, UNICEF, etc., etc..
Atheists do not need a statement of non-belief in God to participate in an organization; this is the point that believers never seem to quite get. Atheists are not that interested in God. It's exactly like asking whether people believe in Zeus. It's irrelevant to anything we're actually doing in the organization, and kind of a bizarre non-sequitur.

Those organizations are comprised of and funded by atheists?

I'm an athiest who funds UNICEF and other aid organizations.

I am a Christian that does as well.
Millions give to charities mentioned and representing them as atheists organizations is ludicrous.

[Anonymous]

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973
NEWS AND ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
Religious Americans Give More, New Study Finds
By Alex Daniels



The more important religion is to a person, the more likely that person is to give to a charity of any kind, according to new research released today.

Among Americans who claim a religious affiliation, the study said, 65 percent give to charity. Among those who do not identify a religious creed, 56 percent make charitable gifts.

About 75 percent of people who frequently attend religious services gave to congregations, and 60 percent gave to religious charities or nonreligious ones. By comparison, fewer than half of people who said they didn’t attend faith services regularly supported any charity, even a even secular one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some religious people I know have a hard time believing a person can be moral without guidance from an authority. That fear of god drives behavior. They simply can't understand why anyone would behave ethically without belief. As people have posted, being an atheist entails behaving as if this is all there is. For the atheists I know, it's doing our best to make this world a better place today because things won't be better in a magical place that we don't get to until we die.

And if you fail at it, there isn't a higher power that will make it right for the people you wronged, or fix the planet, or forgive your sins. You have to do as well as you can, now, no takebacks.

This is an honest question, and something I’ve always wondered. What about the people who decide, screw it, there’s no punishment so I’ll just steal and murder and die rich and happy?

Well luckily we have laws that humans have made and those who break laws should get punished for that. Right? Punishment here on earth, not in the afterlife.

I also have to wonder at what you are implying, that athiests are more often criminals and commit more crime than religious folks. Which history will tell you is absolutely not the case. Just google the 30 Years War. Or Jim Jones.

Some of the most humane people I know are atheists who have a higher code of personal moral conduct than most of my Christian friends.

[Anonymous]

No one said they are atheist organizations. What was was said is that they are not religiously affiliated. Atheists can and do give to charities ,many of them secular. We don't need an Atheist Charity™ to give back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973
NEWS AND ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
Religious Americans Give More, New Study Finds
By Alex Daniels



The more important religion is to a person, the more likely that person is to give to a charity of any kind, according to new research released today.

Among Americans who claim a religious affiliation, the study said, 65 percent give to charity. Among those who do not identify a religious creed, 56 percent make charitable gifts.

About 75 percent of people who frequently attend religious services gave to congregations, and 60 percent gave to religious charities or nonreligious ones. By comparison, fewer than half of people who said they didn’t attend faith services regularly supported any charity, even a even secular one.

I don't know the point of this, the numbers mean the charitable giving is primarily religious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is it. All we have is each other. Therefore, we ought to make this the best of all possible worlds, and help each other to achieve it.

There is no future reward for the suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to end it now. There is also no future punishment for those who cause suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to get them to change their ways, or limit their ability to cause suffering.

And ... cycle of life, science, amazed that we exist at all -- that stuff.

NP here. I've posted before and have described myself as agnostic.

Here's the problem with what you've posted: It all depends on the greater collective to have some sense of obligation to protect those who are suffering and bring about justice, stop those who cause the suffering.

Religion has its flaws, for sure. But I'm not sure atheism is much better. I do know a few very moral atheists. But they have a strong sense of obligation, so they really hold themselves to their morals. I know a lot of atheists who think they have morals and values, but when it comes down to choices, they ALWAYS choose the path that is self-serving, no matter who they hurt in the process. They have no sense of obligation to uphold vows or oaths. It really is all about what serves them best at any given time and what they can get away with. They talk a good game about morals and values, but their system of ethics is kind of like the notion of financial companies regulating themselves: they'll do the "right" thing so long as it is in their interest and they see that the other options will have negative consequences, but if they see no net negative consequence to doing the wrong thing or skirting the edge of right, they'll go for it.

My point is, as much harm as has been done in the name of religion, I'm not so sure that pure atheism would be better for society unless there is a strong sense of obligation to the larger whole. There are some cultures in which there is a strong sense of duty to others that is ingrained in people from youth on up, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I know atheists who do have a strong sense of obligation and internal moral compass, but I also know atheists who basically see morality as a suggestion, not a rule; they do what they want. I know one person in particular who is like this. This person is very self-righteous and will use any opportunity to criticize religion or point out how immoral a religious person is, but this person is kind of a liar and a cheater.

I think the more important question isn't "what do Atheists believe"; it's, what holds your feet to the fire when it comes to actually making ethical choices? Most everyone, religious and nonreligious, has a view of right and wrong. The real question is whether or not they do the right thing even when it runs counter to their own self-interest. And what makes them do that? For many religious people, religion is important not just as a framework for morality and ethical behavior but also as a motivator -- as sort of a cosmic system of justice. It's one thing to say we have a justice system for crime. But there's a lot of unethical behavior that isn't criminal (nor should it be). Most of it falls within the realm of interpersonal relations, be it social or professional.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I wondered. I think everyone knows atheists don’t believe in God. I just wondered what philosophy or guidelines or morals/values atheism entails.

Still, it doesn’t seem like much to “embrace” with atheism. Atheists want to alleviate suffering on earth but I guess they each do so individually in small ways because there’s no atheists outreach or aid organizations, apparently.

You're kidding, right? Every single organization that is not religious is not religious: USAID, UNICEF, etc., etc..
Atheists do not need a statement of non-belief in God to participate in an organization; this is the point that believers never seem to quite get. Atheists are not that interested in God. It's exactly like asking whether people believe in Zeus. It's irrelevant to anything we're actually doing in the organization, and kind of a bizarre non-sequitur.

Those organizations are comprised of and funded by atheists?

I'm an athiest who funds UNICEF and other aid organizations.

I am a Christian that does as well.
Millions give to charities mentioned and representing them as atheists organizations is ludicrous.

They are secular. Is that hard to understand?

Warren Buffet is an atheist who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to charities and plans to give away his billions at his death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one said they are atheist organizations. What was was said is that they are not religiously affiliated. Atheists can and do give to charities ,many of them secular. We don't need an Atheist Charity™ to give back.

It would be a great way for atheists to show their commitment to eradication of poverty, crime, illness, etc.

Also volunteer opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some religious people I know have a hard time believing a person can be moral without guidance from an authority. That fear of god drives behavior. They simply can't understand why anyone would behave ethically without belief. As people have posted, being an atheist entails behaving as if this is all there is. For the atheists I know, it's doing our best to make this world a better place today because things won't be better in a magical place that we don't get to until we die.

And if you fail at it, there isn't a higher power that will make it right for the people you wronged, or fix the planet, or forgive your sins. You have to do as well as you can, now, no takebacks.

This is an honest question, and something I’ve always wondered. What about the people who decide, screw it, there’s no punishment so I’ll just steal and murder and die rich and happy?

But the flip side is the religious people who do these things and then just ask god for forgivness, and boom, they are good to go. They claim only god can judge them. Atheists on the other hand, don't have a mechanism to have the slate wiped clean.

[Anonymous]

Reading through these questions about atheists and atheism, I think how people got some of these ideas. So I'm asking - are they from personal speculation? from church? from your family? something else?

I know when I was growing up, everyone seemed to have a religion and there was not much talk of atheism. Still, atheists were generally, but vaguely, considered to be lesser people because they didn't believe in God.

It wasn't until I started to become an atheist that I thought about it in any depth.