Lloyd Harrison Whitling's WebSite, THE NAKED TRUTH.

 

 

 

From http://www.atheistlloyd.com/Amorality.html

Are Atheists Immoral?

by Lloyd Harrison Whitling

SML145   Hit Counter

 

It's the primary accusation leveled against us, by people whose only knowledge about us comes from the priests and preachers who feel they are in some kind of competition, and who worry that we will somehow steal their congregations. Not to worry, fellows, sheep cannot be converted into goats by any natural processes of which I have been made aware. B-a-a-a-h! It matters very little how hard you struggle to misrepresent evolution, even Behe knows that will not happen.

As an atheist, I know this: Morality has to be a matter of intentions, or else the word has no meaning: Our intention is to be right; their intention is to look right. Our intention is to be good; their intention is to look good. they have to choose their audience for that, and to theists, atheists are of no concern. Our intention is to know; their intention is to persuade. We know by what convinces us in demonstration; they know only by unjustifiable belief. We believe what we can be shown; they believe what they cannot even imagine.

 

mor·al (môr"…l, mĽr"-) adj. 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. 2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. 3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. 4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. 5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support. 6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty. --mor·al n. 1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event. 2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim. 3. morals. Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals. [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin m˝rłlis, from m˝s, m˝r-, custom. See m-1 below.] --mor"al·ly adv.

 

The accusation about our immorality finds accommodation in the minds of the many atheists who consider morality to be a religious concern, and so agree that they have no interest in it, and are, therefore, amoral; that is, to be without moral sensibilities. That is an entirely wrong notion on their own part, perhaps fostered by a lack of interest having led to their failing to gain an understanding of the subject. The threat of constant counter-productive harassment by theists will often lead to an avoidance of all materials deemed to be religious. "Gag me with your nonexistent spoon."

Morality is about right and wrong. Atheists are fully aware of their own ideas on that subject, and (for most of us) our concern about that is what has led us beyond all the claims religions have staked out, to become atheists at the outset. We wanted truth, and no religions could show us that on our own rigorous terms. We wanted testable knowledge, and no religion could give us that. We wanted autonomy, and religions sought always to take that away from us. We perceived all that to be wrong, and that perception, by all correct definitions, showed us that religion is inherently immoral.

Atheists commonly also regard good and evil to be strictly religious materials, and err also in that. Good, we all know, is the candy we find in life. Evil is the word that gives most atheists fits, and yet it gets defined as a secular interest in my dictionaries. How can that be so?

e·vil (¶"vl) adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est. 1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. See Synonyms at bad1. 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet. 3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens. 4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation. 5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper. --e·vil n. 1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. 2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil. 3. An evil force, power, or personification. 4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice. --e·vil adv. Archaic. In an evil manner.

Where, in all of that, do you see a religious interpretation? Perhaps in the one word, 'morally'? (See above). As an adverb or an adjective, evil is a secular word, and adequately describes the way atheists typically regard religions to operate. Atheists typically recognize the definitions given above to be true, and willingly accept everything about them but the word itself. Demanding others to use synonyms is the secular equivalent of saying 'screw' when we mean 'fuck', when both words elicit identical pictures in people's minds.

Religions' tendency to reify, or hypostatize, the concept of evil leads atheists to reject it. As a noun, it is a name for something, as in "Evil is what evil does." Evil, as a thing, does not exist, but it does describe the nature of many things. As an adjective (in the definitions) and an adverb, evil is a powerful word that ought to be in our vocabularies. Why?

How best to describe the overall effects of religion in the world? Surely, there have been great works of art sponsored by religions—all to the glorification of the sponsoring religions. Surely, there have been helping hands extended to those in need by the world's many religions. That, too, could be seen as astute promotion done by the religious enterprises, even though I suspect that religion is inhabited by the many good folks who would do good on their own, but find their efforts to be more effective as a part of an organization whose large pools of tax-free money (donated by said good folks) enable large scale efforts of which they become small parts. In that, religion ends up being moral.

But, that is where their morality ends, and immorality takes over. Atheists are atheists because they dislike lying to themselves, and religions are perceived by them to be based entirely on lies and upheld by people trained to lie to themselves and believe their own stories. Most theists have been trained into their religion, immersed into it while they remained gullible infants, or changed from one branch of it to another without really abdicating their early inoculation of memes. After generations of humans have come and gone under the religions' influence and domination, the apparent source of the stories, the one that mama and daddy believed when their parents and grandparents poured it into their ears and soaked it into their information-hungry minds, has reached an incredible aura of credence while the circumstances of its creation has evaporated behind the scenes. The neighbors all believed some version of it, for all the same reasons. Who was there to dare attempting to discredit it?

To be sure, all atheists do not start out life in the same manner. People arive at atheism in all sorts of ways different from the way people adopt theism. Although the highest percentage of us started out with our heads dominated by religions' high-anxiety stories, atheists may be anybody from someone with a simple realization that no gods exist, to someone who has arrived at it after decades of study. Between the long expanse that extends to both extremes will be all sorts of people, from common drunks and murderers, drug addicts, to highly educated and erudite scientists and researchers. Unlike theists, the knowledge atheists hold about atheism in general will be as wide as the gamut of their backgrounds, accomplishments and failures. Luckily, we are opposite of theists in that their greatest numbers are at the low end, while ours are at the high. As a result, no honest assessment about atheism will ever present a one description fits all picture of atheists.

That we do not share a common origin for our philosophies renders us susceptible to attacks by those bent on playing mind games and doing battle by acting as aggressors against us. The lack of commonality breeds into secularism a diverse pool of individualists who share no common view of existence, that has fostered a growth of scientific knowledge over the past century and a half as a result of sharing the one feature we hold in common, a deep respect for the scientific method. It is adoption of that by which we maintain our atheistic views, and by which religions' attempts to maneuver us into corners end in failure; there are no corners in circular arguments.

No moral values can be demonstrated and upheld as valid by any method that cannot demonstrate workable truth. Only the secular approach followed by diverse atheists leads to common views. Where science has fully developed, atheists achieve invincible agreement; where science has yet to finalize its theories into substantial statements, atheists philosophize according to their own knowledge and experience, and the diversity continues. Tangible truth supports atheism, and the morally-inspired search for, and acquisition of, that kind of truth elevates all secular people above the religious.

Who are they to judge us?

Atheist FAQ


Copyright ©2005 by Lloyd Harrison Whitling. All rights reserved. [Click for larger picture]  

 

"To deny a right to the experience of pleasure is immoral unless that denial can be justified by a valid presentation of how pain will result from that experience in an amount that would render the expected pleasure regrettable; or, if it can be shown that pain will be induced in others innocent of any involvement. The role of science in moral issues should be to test that, predict that, and find harmless ways to demonstrate that."

— L. H. Whitling in the eBook, Secular Morality

This page last edited on 01/20/2008 

TNT-The Naked Truth Web Site
BUY a BOOK

Site Map Menu Page Back to Top Debunking Your request for Support? Glossary

YOU can SAVE A LIFE

This site is the responsibility of its author and none other. Unless otherwise noted, all information, graphics and displays, in their original and all updated forms, are copyright ©2002-2008 by Lloyd Harrison Whitling. To read permissions, click here. Your comments/complaints may be used in future web pages, discussion, group messages, or as examples within future articles without seeking permission, unless each message contains an explicit disclaimer of permission, without notification to you. Submit to

WANTED: Positive comments to be used in promotional materials. Constructive criticism of any kind is always appreciated. Negative (destructive) criticism without merit is also appreciated for its usefulness as humor, or as bad examples, examples of fruitless endeavors, and as sources of information for development of rejoinders. Threats will be taken as serious and turned over to appropriate agencies, as will obvious scams and other attempts to defraud, embezzle, etc.