British Olympic Cheerleader Controversy

The Olympics in Britain apparently have a cheerleading squad. The controversy stems from a public voting on the group of cheerleaders they wanted. The public chose The Crystals—made famous by their routine of the infamous song "Call Me Maybe"—a highly sexualized group. The committee in Britain, who had the final say, instead went with the London Wild Cat cheerleaders (a less provocative group).

I left a comment on the orginal story (found on Yahoo Sports). Here it is:

Roger: "Good for the British committee; they at least have dignity. If this was in the U.S. they probably would have had strippers and abortion tents. I know I'm being factious, but public events and the media need to stop catering to the perverts—the Olympics is not about trying to make people horny—there's plenty of internet space for such degenerates already."

I mostly got positive feedback so far. If some moron tries to debate me I'll update this post accordingly. Nastiness is too representative on the internet; the moral need to speak up. In regards to my abortion comment, I believe abortion is immoral in more ways than one. I'm not saying that those who get abortions are all perverts, but certainly many lack the values that I hold (e.g. family, human life, sexual morals).

Click here for the source (Yahoo Sports)

Guy calls all Catholics "pedophiles": My response (Yahoo comments)

Bubbles: "Creepy Catholic pedophiles think they are on the moral high ground? Really!"

Me: "It's prejudice (and bigoted) to label all Catholics as 'pedophiles'. A few misfits does not describe the church as a whole."

Bubbles: "@ Jeremy.. Your backward thinking on contraception may be accepted in third world countries where the population is ignorant and superstitious but it just doesn't work in this country."

Me: "I never provided an opinion on contraceptives. In case you didn't notice, my comment was about YOU claiming that all Catholics were pedophiles (which was implied given the context). 


Here's my take on the issue: If someone wants to use contraceptives, then that's there business; that said, its inclusion in healthcare coverage should not be government mandated. The federal government was not given that power in the constitution (you may wanna give it a read); which was very specific about the role of government and its powers. The constitution was meant to prevent the government from growing and controlling as much as it desired. 


You may think conservatives have backwards thinking, but I can assure you that they perceive people like you in the same way. You can think whatever you want; opinions are not factual--so those that hold them are merely perceiving reality (including people's behavior) differently--so there is no "right" or "wrong". Morality falls into the realm of opinion (based on different valuations). Long story short: Your morality is neither right or wrong, just an opinion. 


I assume you are your own moral authority; that would explain a lot."


--------------
I'll provide updates if he comments further.

I do this (discuss my internet "comments") to correct people's thinking. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of all the unchecked lewdness, bigotry, and ignorance on the internet. Stupid people need guidance. 

I used to be an atheist...

I used to be an atheist. Now I'm busy working on being a good Christian. I was converted back after reading a book about evolution and humanism from a Christian perspective. It made a lot of sense to me. Honestly, looking back now I can't believe that I fell for the lie of atheism and humanism (two heads of the same coin, which only diminish the greatness of humanity and the universe we inhabit...not to mention the creator). Atheism is certainly very pervasive in american society, and it needs to be met head-on. The further we move away from the moral truth (Christianity), the worse society becomes. On this blog, I'm looking to debate atheists. I'm willing to bet many atheists are out there that would absolutely love to debate (they are more trying to convince themselves than convert others to atheism). Again, I used to be an atheist, so I know how their minds work. 

atheist's morality vs. believer's morality

I've written blog posts that entertained the idea that atheists are more immoral, along with blog posts that entertain the opposite. Besides being a person that often changes their mind, I see valid arguments on both sides. From one perspective, atheists are harder to control. I don't believe many atheists would argue that point. But on the other, atheists base their moral decisions on reason, not fear (which isn't really morality, but self-preservation). If I was a dictator, let's just say I would have a much easier time controlling the population's behavior utilizing religion than rationality. And that isn't to say that religion is totally irrational, but those are the best words to label (at least in my opinion) the difference between atheistic morality vs. religious morality (atheism being based, hopefully, in reason).

Ignoring the illogical stance of moral-relativity (sadly many atheists possess this delusional belief), atheists, when confronted with a moral dilemma, will use their capacity for empathy along with logical thinking to come up with an answer. A believer in God will defer to the bible or their religious leaders—in other words, no thinking required on their end. In general this is the problem with Christianity (and other similar religions) is that there is no critical thinking required—in fact it is often frowned upon.

The only argument against atheist's morality is that some people can use reason to justify horrible behaviors. But, as we all know, religious people do this as well, the only difference is the use God as a scapegoat. In general I've found that most atheists are good people, no one is perfect, but understanding why moral behavior is good is much more useful than blindly following orders. 

We need to value values again.

Many atheists don't want to admit it, but the demise of religion (majority of Americans are very casual, and one step away from being atheists/agnostics) has left a gaping hole in our societal values. Not that religion is the only possible source of these values, but the majority of people have no other understanding of the importance of values. Many Christians believe that if God isn't real, there is no purpose to things like ethics, morals, and values. The real problem here is our societies reliance on religion as a source of values. Without religion, we as a society are left with a hole that the culture industry is apparently (and destructively) filling. It's why I believe along with math and science, kids should have a class focus on values and morality. This is going to be a short blog post, this is just food for thought.

How can we create an alternative for religion to formally (a must) teach children how they should behave?

Atheism and moral-relativity

Atheism is often linked (wrongly) with moral-relativity. Before I go any further, let me make it clear that moral-relativity is NOT morality, but a belief system that seeks to destroy morality. Many famous atheists try to promote moral-relativistic ideas under the banner of atheism, and impressionable herd-atheists automatically accept these ideas. The great majority of atheists are not freethinkers in reality (most people in general aren't), they blindly follow atheists leaders in the same way that Catholics follows a priest. It is especially the herd-atheists that typically are moral-relativists, those that go to the moral-relativism stance on their own are just not very "bright". For those moral-relativistic atheists that are reading this, think of an actual example for where moral-relativity applies. And remember, I'm looking for an ACTUAL example, not a made-up one.

The fact of the matter is that there are right and wrong answers to each and every situation. Moral-relativists use fantasy to imagine how moral rules don't apply in every situation, and this allows them to ignore the rule completely (and/or ignore individuals that violate moral rules). I've written many posts going into detail for why moral-relativity is stupid (just search for "moral-relativism" in the search bar at the top).

The biggest problem I see with atheists associating atheism with moral-relativity is that it creates the false assumption that people can only be moral if they believe in God. In other words, that without a belief in God, a person can't be moral. If a person claims to be a moral-relativist, people automatically assume they are an atheist (which is obviously another problem altogether). It makes people assume that atheists are all amoral or immoral, which isn't the case for all atheists. We are beings that do exist, and there are behaviors that promote psychological well-being and flourishing, and behaviors that do the opposite. There are moral answers to all questions, the "anything goes" moral system is bogus. And it makes the atheist community look bad when an atheist promotes such nonsensical ideas.

APB #1: Can Atheists Be Moral?

I'm going to be changing my blog up so that it is more orderly. From now on I'm going to be numbering my blog posts (this being the first I'm numbering). By doing this I'm hoping to make it a little bit more pleasant to follow (APB = Atheist Perspective Blog). This first blog post is going to be about atheist-morality. Morality is one of those areas that are still open for debate (part of me believes in belief for some people, but that is not the subject of this blog post). I see a lot of Christians using fear, guilt, and reward to motivate people to behave "good" (a sociopathic-morality in my opinion).


Can Atheists Be Moral?

Many people believe that atheists cannot be moral because it is "impossible" to be moral without God. While I'm not going to sugarcoat it—many atheists are not all that moral (many are)—this doesn't mean that atheists are unable to be moral. I like to think of myself as being a moral person (as I suppose most people do). And I believe that atheism liberates people from the pseudo-morality that God provides. I say that morality that God provides (or rather from the belief in God) is 'pseudo' because it not genuine at heart. The "morality" provided by God is born out of fear—true morality is born out of love (being good to avoid going to hell =/= being moral in my book). Being "good" because God is "watching" is acting out of a fear of the consequences. For example, when I was in middle school, I found an envelope on the ground. It wasn't sealed, and I saw that there was a ton of money inside (probably around $300). School was getting done when I found this—I could have easily pocked the money—but the thought never crossed my mind. Instead, I immediately went to the office, explained what happened to the secretary, and left her the envelope. That is what moral behavior is...no God needed. I returned the envelope because I was concerned about the person that lost the money; my actions were motivated by empathy, not fear of the consequences.

Be good for the sake of being good, not for the sake of avoiding punishment or being praised. Christians (or any similar religion) have a tough time finding a true source of morality (at least in my opinion) because they are constantly distracted by behaving out of fear or reward—this is what they learn morality is, which is wrong. Atheists are not as distracted, perhaps because the stakes are not as high for them (avoiding eternal punishment vs. eternal reward). If you see an atheist doing a good deed, he/she is more likely to be doing it out of the goodness of their heart. It's hard to tell if a believer is just being good for browny points, or in spite of the fact that they are being "watched and judged".

Gay Marriage Legal in New York State

I just recently heard about the legalization of gay marriage in my state, and I figured I would do a quick blog about my thoughts on it.

There is a big debate about whether or not gay marriage is a good thing for society. Some believe that such a thing destroys the meaning of marriage and is immoral. Obviously such a belief is typically limited to those looking to protect religious values. I see no objective reason for why gay marriage is a bad thing. It would only be a bad thing if it had a negative impact—which I don't believe it does. In fact I believe the effect of gay marriage on society is a good thing in that it is what many gay couples want, and it harms virtually no one (may cause stress for those that are philosophically against it, which I guess could be slightly harmful). In fact I believe this development will lesson societal turmoil: when one group is unable to do things that another group is able to do, this is a rights violation, and this only fuels in-group/out-group hatred. Gay marriage certainly will further help integrate the gay community. As far as those that believe it will ruin heterosexual marriages, I don't understand how—unless of course for those "heterosexual" people that get tempted to jump to the other side of the fence (where they feel more comfortable). Obviously I am not all knowing, but from what I have seen, gay marriage should have no effect on true heterosexual marriages. In-fact homosexuality is better in the open than for it to be hidden and for gay men to hide their sexuality by getting into heterosexual relationships (which is harmful in itself). The fact of the matter is, even if gay marriage does go against certain people's values, this is a free country, and freedom is a two-way street.

Moral of the story: Don't worry marriage traditionalists, no one is going to force you into a same-sex marriage. And while this victory for the gay community isn't directly connected with the rise of atheism, I believe the rise of atheism has strengthened secularism, which surely has helped (close enough to a victory for atheism...or more specifically, secularism over religion). 

The Sex Bubble

What is the sex bubble? It is an economic bubble (sex is an industry), and as inferred by the use of the word bubble, it will eventually pop. In the United States, among many other places, sex is a big industry. Hell, anyone that regularly uses the internet knows that many businesses are making bank off turning people on. Anyone with eyes has noticed the steady increase in the pervasiveness of the sex industry in our day-to-day lives. While this isn't directly caused by atheism, I believe it perhaps is indirectly caused by the loss of traditional values given by religion (but not exclusively owned by religion). But perhaps what is more responsible is the cultural lag caused the the rapid changes that technology has had upon our socialization. Each generation's socialization has been very different from the last, and this is reflective of a disturbed society that begs for stabilization.

Nearly everyone has sexual desires (it's not a need like water or food). In other words, nearly everyone gets horny in the same way that nearly everyone gets angry, sad, happy, etc. But just because we all experience these things, does not mean we should encourage them to their fullest. For example, I could be angry at something, and could get myself very worked up if that anger is encouraged (by obsessively thinking about it) over a long period of time—doing this will lead to a very deeply rooted cynicism (like that of TheAmazingAtheist). Anger is a useful emotion, when it is used usefully, and the same is true of the sex drive. That said, if a person constantly exposes themselves to things that generate sexual arousal, the brain will rewire itself accordingly (making a person for lack of a better term, perverted).

But don't we already know this? Don't we know that encouraging a particular emotion will cause changes in our worldview? But it doesn't need to be over a long period of time. For example, let's say I had a positive view towards Arnold Schwarzenegger, but after finding out about his scandal, I experienced anger/disgust towards him. Such a change of view is purely driven by emotionally charged thoughts, and those perceptions transcend the knowledge of his affair and pollute the entire view of him (and it would take effort to undo this pollution). This is true of all emotionally charged thinking/labeling. Another example would be woman that have a sexism towards men. If a woman thinks about men as being bad often enough, eventually those negative emotions will transcend their perception of all men. I believe the same principle can be applied to a society that is overexposed to sexually arrousing images. The more sexually arousing images an individual sees, the more they will want to see to get that euphoric high. Traditionally, people were limited to what they could get away with under the law, and typically marriage—and those energies were channeled into single individuals forming closer family bonds. This is part of the reason the divorce rate is so high: people have sexual appetites that are so great that a single individual cannot quench them. Not only that, but the fact that people have many more sexual encounters will multiple individuals, this destroys the amount of intimacy and individual can experience with the person they end up marrying (sex has become slightly more intimate than a handshake). And this is all caused by an emotional state and worldview perpetuating one another. The sex industry is one of the biggest problems our society faces in the future, it has a direct role in destabilizing the family unit.

This trend however is reaching its ceiling, and we are seeing the negative impacts upon the foundation of society (i.e. the family). If you watch TV, see magazine covers, go on the internet, and so on, there really isn't much more sex they can pack in. I believe with the reaching of the ceiling (again, how much more sex can be put out in the open?) coupled with the negative consequences of this hyper-sexuality imposed on our society by corporations, we will see a popping of the sex bubble. What does this have to do with atheism? Well, I believe atheism is eventually going to dominate society, and it is up to the atheists (by default) to establish (or reestablish) sexual values back into society (at the moment sexual values are far weaker than they should be). An example of this is to reestablish the useful disgust towards promiscuity that once existed—sadly it is now a badge of honor for most—and it eventually leads such individuals (i.e. the majority) to experience...or rather not to experience the deep level of intimacy that binds a relationship. Not only is there a lack of intimacy, but the proverbial bar is raised to unreachable heights for what is sexually attractive. The sex industry has weakened the bond that holds the foundation of a society together; let's hope this bubble pops soon so that its destructive (albeit apparently subtle) influence doesn't raise havoc on our values for much longer.

Boycott the sex industry, you and your society will be better for it in the long run. 

Arnold Schwarzenegger has a secret child!

I just read on Yahoo News that Arnold Schwarzenegger has a 'secret child' (click me for story). Why does it seem like so many politicians are unfaithful? I believe it has to do with the nature of a politician. Most politicians, in order to be successful, need to be sociopathic to an extent. Harsh? Well, I believe underlying many stereotypes is a grain of wisdom. I believe that, yes, politicians are just good liars, and in order to be a "good" liar, a person must be a bad person (at least in my opinion). People that lie and cheat are moral-relativists. We know of so many politicians that have cheated on their spouses, the question is how many do it and get away with it?

I believe Arnold Schwarzenegger is sociopathic, and moral relativism is the morality of a sociopath. When confronted with an immoral temptation (like cheating on a spouse), a sociopath will utilize moral relativism to justify their actions. I bet if Arnold found out that his wife cheated on him, he wouldn't have accepted it like he accepted it as being okay to cheat on her - this is the nature of a moral-relativist. At the end of the day, we are moral creatures by nature, sadly, we can use our brains to think ourselves out of moral obligations.

If you read the comments of this story on Yahoo News, you will see most people being sympathetic (even though I think Yahoo filters comments). This just goes to show that moral relativism is a strong force in society. To sympathize with someone is to accept their actions as being permissible, and this just goes to show how many people subscribe to moral relativistic thinking. Very few people would tolerate being cheated on, yet they accept it when they do it themselves, and feel sympathy for those that do it to others (perhaps they can associate with it). Anyways, yep, just wanted to put my 2 cents in on this issue. It's a shame most politicians are scumbags, I believe if a politician gets caught, even in a white lie, they should be punished at the polls severely. America needs more of a paranoia of being lied to by politicians. If politicians can't be trusted to be faithful to their wives, how can we trust them with running society? 

Moral-relativism is a societal cancer.

While reading the book How We Die by Sherwin B. Nuland, it occurred to me that moral-relativists could be considered a societal cancer. Strong words? Well, before I get too far, let me quote the lines that led me to this conclusion.

"Knowing no rules, cancer is amoral. Knowing no purpose other than to destroy life, cancer is immoral. A cluster of malignant cells is a disorganized autonomous mob of maladjusted adolescents, raging against the society from which it sprang. It is a street gang intent on mayhem." -Sherwin B. Nuland

In the quote, Nuland is literally talking about cancer, but I see ways in which it could be applied sociologically as well as biologically (both are very interdependent). Is it possible that certain individuals are cancerous to a society? Well, for us to perceive it in such a way, we must look at society as being machine-like (which isn't very hard to do), and the individuals that make up the society as being similar to the cells of the body—either functional or nonfunctional. Also what must be looked at is how the world-view of a moral-relativist (including the influencing biological factors) replicates. To clarify, when I use the term 'moral-relativist', I am referring to the world-view individuals posses, not their actual being (chemically, certain parallels perhaps could be drawn as well). I just found this to be an interesting way of looking at the issue of moral-relativism in society. I believe what makes a human human is not the possessed biology, but the possessed moral-values. We don't value flesh and bone, we value meaning and purpose—the life of a moral-relativist is meaningless, and its meaninglessness spreads like a cancer.

Sorry if this post seems a bit rambley. It's just food for thought, and perhaps even a cure for cancer.


Here is a link to purchase How We Die, buy it!

Abortion is immoral

I am a pro-life atheist. I have written many blog posts on why I believe abortion is morally wrong, and this is another one of them, enjoy (wrong word choice?)...

Another reason abortion is wrong, a reason that is not often brought up, is because it is the objectification of human life. Objectification is exactly the tactic used by pro-choicers, they claim that it is ...

"just a ball of cells"


"isn't self-aware"


"is no different than killing skin cells"


All arguments pro-choicers utilize immediately seek to objectify human life. An unborn baby (words like 'embryo' and 'fetus' are mere tools to objectify human life) is human life, there is no way around this with any intellectual honesty. Abortion is immoral, and so is attempting to argue in favor of it.

Pro-choicers view human life as merely an instrument for their own ends, and even objectify themselves for the sake of superficial pleasures and/or material gains. This is the sad reality for why most atheists are pro-choice.

Atheists often are too damn wrapped up in their own delusional objectivity (read this blog post to understand what I mean by this). They often have a hard time valuing human life beyond its perceived material worth. For example, many atheists try to dehumanize all human life as being 'mere chemical reactions'. Not to digress, but I would argue that in order to deem something valueless, this requires a methodology of assigning value in itself. I am unable to grasp how pro-choicers are unable to see the value of an unborn baby beyond its physiological makeup. Not only does this devalue the life of an unborn baby, it devalues all human life as being "mere objects" vunerable to the wrath of sociopathic individuals.

Objectifying human life has caused so much evil in this world (check out my post on evil). We must stop the objectification of human life. 

An atheist's perspective on evil.

Does evil exist? 

Many atheists would claim that it doesn't. As it was stated in the video I put up by Allsaintsmonastery: evil is caused by lack of empathy, it does not physically exist, instead it is a descriptive state and/or behavior of a being. Evil cannot be done in the presence of empathy for all those affected.

What is evil? 


I believe evil is the potential behavior of conscious beings to be both unempathetic and destructive (to the self and others).

Why don't many atheists believe in evil?


This is because some of the most outspoken atheists are also the dumbest. Those atheists that don't believe in evil are moral-relativists, which means that they embody evil (evil needs the cover of ignorance in order to thrive). It is our awareness of unempathetical and destructive behavior that allows us to resist it.  This is why moral-relativists are evil, it is obvious that they provide camouflage for evil by promoting and embodying concepts that seek to de-label it (evil thrives when there is little awareness of it). Many atheists don't want to believe in evil because of a guilty conscience; such atheists are aware of the harm they have caused.

I would say that the root of all evil is dehumanization (i.e. objectification), and such a thing is caused by lack of empathy (for the self and/or society). I believe the atheist community needs to put more thought into the subject of morality; to pretend morality doesn't exist allows for the perpetuation of immorality (which is evil).  

Joe Rogan on religion/morality

It's not a good thing to teach kids a religious-morality with the expectation that they will become atheist/agnostic later. If the only reason we behave morally is that "God is watching", then this will cause problems if the person becomes an atheist/agnostic (will become moral-relativists once they lose religion). A better morality is one that is based in empathy, and understanding the consequences of immoral behavior (on the self and society). Religion creates a pseudo-morality which is dangerous if people stop believing in the religion. A secular-based morality works with rationality.

Moral-behavior is behavior that is beneficial to the functionality of society, immoral-behavior is behavior that is harmful to the functionality of society.

The only down-side of this is that it requires more thought than the "I better not do it because God will be mad" morality of religions like Christianity, Islam, etc. 

Are atheists immoral?

"Not possessing a religious basis for morality, atheists are fundamentally incapable of having a coherent system of morality." -www.conservapedia.com (source link at bottom of post)

The site also continues to claim that atheists are more likely to view the following behaviors as being "morally acceptable"..

-illegal drug use
-excessive drinking
-sexual relationships outside of marriage
-abortion
-cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage
-obscene language
-gambling
-pornography and obscene sexual behavior


While it pains me to admit it, conservapedia is right. Atheists are more likely to view the above behaviors as morally acceptable. The problem is not so much that atheists lack a religiously-based morality, but that our society is/has been too reliant on religious systems of morality. In other words, without God, we don't know why we should act morally (there are other reasons).

Yes, atheists are more likely to believe the listed behaviors as being morally acceptable. The problem is that, as a society, we have not accepted reasons for believing that such behaviors are morally wrong besides "God is watching". There are sociologically-based reasons for seeing that many of the listed behaviors are harmful (i.e. immoral). I address each point below...

Illegal drug use - If a drug is immoral to use only because it is illegal, this reflects a flaw in moral-reasoning, being that it is moral-relativism (which isn't true-morality at all). It can't be denied that certain illegal drug-use can be harmful to society, as well as some legal drugs. To determine if a drug is good for a society vs. harmful what must be looked at is its effects on society as a whole, along with the diversity of the ways people use it (which isn't always an easy task). For example, taking Tylenol can be good, but taking an entire bottle isn't. Many factors exist in this area, and require more than just 'black and white' thinking.

Excessive drinking - Excessive drinking obviously has harmful effects on a society's ability to function, causing it to be immoral.

Sexual relationships outside of marriage - While many atheists will strongly disagree (as should be expected), it is true that such behavior perhaps is immoral (i.e. causes societal harm). The family unit is the foundation of a society, and we can easily observe the high divorce rates as being linked to sexual relationships outside of marriage (at least in part). The problem is that the instant pleasure given by sex outside of marriage (or a relationship in general) blinds people to the long-term harm caused by such behavior (i.e. when someone cheats in a relationship). Marriage equates to committal, and this is a weak force in our society, and perhaps such a moral stance has societal advantages (which would make it a moral stance).

Abortion - I've written many blog posts about this subject. The practice of abortion can be shown to be destructive to society in multiple ways. One issue with abortion that I haven't blogged about is that it eliminates the fear of pregnancy while in a uncommitted relationship (see above point). Fear of pregnancy used to be a good way of pushing people into the right direction (finding long-term/committed relationships, and forming families). If you are curious what my other arguments are against abortion (I have many), just use the search bar at the top, or the 'labels' on the lower right-side.

Cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage - It is important for a person to be committed to a relationship before cohabitation. The best way to show committal is through marriage/engagement. Many people end up in bad situations from being stuck with someone that they are not committed to, but have nowhere else to go. This moral issue has a lot of grey area, and I do not believe it is all that clear. Cohabitation is a great way to get to know a person better, but it is also a good way of getting stuck in a bad relationship, and not feeling free to leave (out of fear, etc.).

Obscene language - Certain "language" can cause harm to the functionality of a society (i.e. can be immoral). Words have meaning, and words can/do influence society in a positive or negative way. Speaking vulgarly is not "edgy", and it can be harmful in ways that can be subtle. Hearing obscene language can cause people to think in ways that they ordinarily wouldn't, and can ultimately lead them down immoral paths (i.e. destructive paths). Many atheists will disagree out of personal bias, but things such as musical lyrics do have a big impact on an individual's world-view (many atheists love their vulgar music). Most people are guilty of using offensive language (myself included), but it certainty can be problematic. If anything there is a time and place, and certain things should never be said (like much of the crap in contemporary music).

Gambling - Gambling addiction is very harmful to the functionality of a society (making it immoral). The word 'gamble' is much too broad however—we gamble virtually every day when we get out of bed (not to get hit by a car while crossing the street, etc.)

Pornography and obscene sexual behavior - The difference between pornography and prostitution is if the buyer is in the business of selling the footage. Pornography is prostitution, and prostitution is harmful to the functionality of a society in ways so obvious that I don't feel I need to elaborate. 

Yes, many atheists behave immorally. Not many people are able to claim that all of their behavior is beneficial to themselves and/or society. That said, atheists (and obviously others) need to do a better job, and be more thoughtful when it comes to the subject of morality. Just because religiously-based morality is based in fiction, doesn't mean morality itself is. Morality can be just as logically-based as anything else. Immorality exists on both sides (Christians make up a good majority in the United States), and as Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Here is a link to the page on conservapedia (click me). Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Their pseudo-morality needs to be challenged by atheists with secular, well thought-out morality. 

Can atheism cause evil?

Many believe that atheism can cause evil. They create a list of infamous atheists (like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot), and assume that it must have been atheism that motivated their actions. In other words, many people believe that lack of a belief in God causes evil. But is this true? Does atheism cause evil? I am going to argue that it doesn't, and that atheism logically cannot cause anything in and of itself. Below is a video called Atheists killed 150 million people in the name of Atheism. While I will deny that it was atheism that caused certain evils, it cannot be denied that many believe that it does.



It is very common for believers to argue atheism by pointing to infamous historical figures that happen to be atheists and claiming - "see, look at what atheism causes!". Correlation however does not equal causation; can it be proven that atheism can and/or does cause violence? No. In-fact the opposite can be shown to be true. It has been shown that statistically, atheist nations are more peaceful  (as shown in the video below)

With any intellectual honesty at all, it cannot be argued that atheism causes anything—even outside of statistics—atheism can't actually cause anything (it is a lack of a belief, not a belief in itself). But it has been shown that lack of religion correlates with lower rates of violence within a society. Why would those that believe in an imaginary big-brother have a tendency to behave more violently? I believe it comes down to two main things which cause paranoia that leads to violent behavior.

1). Feeling of being watched 24/7 (fear of punishment for not being  perfect in Jesus/Yahweh/God/Allah's eyes).


2). Higher promotion of in-group/out-group mentality (along with the demonization/dehumanization of the 'out-group').

A religious world-view (referring world-views caused primarily by Abrahamic religions) can be altered to be more secular (i.e. non-religious) and still keep some of its core-beliefs (Jesus, heaven, etc.). That said, it still appears that societies that are dominated with individuals with an atheist world-view is less violent than the alternative. So it seems that atheism in a society is ultimately a good thing, but there are obviously other belief systems that are nonreligious ('religious' in the context of Abrahamic and other similar belief systems) that can cause a person to act violently (e.g. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). The point here is that it is belief systems that cause evil, not atheism. Atheism is not a belief system but a lack of one. It takes a belief system to make a sane person act crazy.

Atheism is Moral Relativism?

This is a common argument that the religious make against nonbelievers (i.e. atheists). Obviously atheism =/= moral relativism. Atheism has nothing to do with morality at all (atheism is the mere disbelief in deity/s). However, most atheists seem to be moral relativists, so this stereotype can be applied in most cases. But, not all atheists are moral relativists (including me). Most often it is Christians that accuse atheists of being moral relativists (I've seen a few Muslims do it as well), when in reality they are the ones with morality that is relative. Morality for a Christian is based solely on their perception of the beliefs of a particular god (imaginary or not). A Christian's view on what his/her god's morality is varies greatly, so obviously some or all Christians are wrong (more likely all). For example, some Christians believe God hates gay people, others believe that God loves gay people (someone is obviously wrong).

An example of this would be during the time of slavery. Christians used the bible to justify the practice, believing that God thought it was morally permissible. This shows that a Christian's view on what is moral and what is not is completely relative/bias. Christians enjoy engaging in moral-relativity and use their god as a means of perceived justification (slavery, rape, genocide, etc).

As I claimed before, I am not a moral relativists, unlike many atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc. For someone to not be a moral relativists they must first understand what morality is, along with what purpose it serves. Morality, simply put, is behavior (can be in the form of cognition and physical action) that is beneficial to the functionality of society. Obviously the smallest unit in a society is the individual. Being a social species, it is very important for us to have an innate sense of morality without understanding its purpose. But, it is undeniable that this is the purpose of morality. When a person believes they are acting morally, this does not necessarily mean that they are. It can be difficult to get beyond personal bias and warped world-views in order to see a clear, objective picture of how the behaviors of individuals influence society as a whole.

This model of morality can be easily applied, and in many cases, our moral reasoning is spot on as a society. A great example is murder. We view murder as being morally wrong. Why? Well, the act of murder is destructive to the functionality of a society (destruction of individuals and the harm to the well-being of others). Lying is morally wrong—as a species that relies heavily on information, if we are unable to get good, accurate information, our society's ability to function is harmed. While there are exceptions to actual acts (such as lying in certain situations), the foundation of morality is not relative with this view. While it may be difficult for an individual to assess how their/others behavior influences society as a whole, it cannot be denied that it does. It also cannot be denied that actions have consequences, and those consequence, while they appear to be the sole of cause of harm, have underlying factors that do not appear on the surface to be harmful in themselves (i.e. the underlying causal behaviors). This is why morality should be thought about in this way—it allows for a deeper understand of morality.  This is the kind of morality atheists should subscribe to, not moral relativity. When atheists endorse moral relativity, they look like fools—when Christians do it, they look like hypocrites. 

Atheist Richard Dawkins: Scientific Thinking And Moral Philosophy

We should draw lines, otherwise we will have to stop eating animals and plants (why value life that has a nervous system over that which doesn't?). Human life/human interest should always rise above that of other animals, otherwise human-life will end (animals are afraid of humans because we kill them, if we stop they will start killing us). Human life is very unique in the world, no other creature has even close to the intellectual capacity of a human. Intelligence should be what we value as a species, and in this realm we are the greatest on this planet. We should not worry about the well-being of nonhuman life unless doing so is beneficial to human life. If we stop valuing life based on intelligence/potential, then we will be in a lot of trouble (a person will get life in prison for stepping on a grasshopper).

Atheist Richard Dawkins - Religion vs Morality

Morality needs to be looked at from a broader perspective than mere pleasure vs. suffering. Morality exists because it is required of a social species. Morality is behavior that benefits the functionality of a society, and evil is behavior that is harmful to the functionality of society. Now, what people believe is best for society can vary radically, and these debates are sociological in nature. Morality changes as our society changes -- when radical change occurs, our morality is insufficient, and needs to adapt to changing factors (like the internet in modern times). 

only moral because of God?

Many believers make the argument that morality would not exist if there wasn't for God (which implies that god must be real); this argument is very poor for many reasons.

 For the sake of argument, let's say that God exist ('for the sake of argument' =/=  concession that a god exists). Is it good to act morally only because someone is watching? If God is the reason we act morally, then it would seem that without God everyone would act immorally. This sort of mentality is why believers perceive atheists as being immoral, and completely goes against the concept of free-will. On the other hand believers see atheists arguing for moral-relativism, and view them as being moral-less blah blah, so on and so forth.

I would argue that those that are moral because of God are like those little-asshole-kids that are only good around Christmas an their birthday for the reward.

The religious are unable to escape their selfish motives for behaving well. Someone that behaves well only out of fear of punishment or hope of reward, is not moral. I would argue that by default atheists are more genuine because they don't believe someone is watching them like Big Brother, and don't believe in reward post-life.

Someone that behaves morally for the sake of others is genuinely behaving morally; i.e. motives are not out of self-interest, but out the interest of others. It seems that those who subscribe to the 'I'm only good because someone watching' view of morality are sociopaths, but what do you think?

Do believers have a sociopathic-view of morality?

Click the 'agree' button if you agree, or 'disagree' button if you don't agree (buttons are below the post).