Why do people assume that an athiest is immoral?

Question

I have heard many people on Yahoo! Answers say that people who are godless must be immoral, and I want to know why that is. I know many athiests, and all of them are upstanding citizens. Please explain this to me.

Answer 1

As far as i'm concerned it's just another aspersion used to try to shame atheists into religion.
The fact is that morality is dictated by society and not by an ancient book that couldn't possibly have forseen what the moral issues of today are.
Some religious people are so zealous in their belief that anyone who believes otherwise is "wrong", influenced by Satan, and therefore morally bankrupt.

Answer 2

The problem with atheism is it does not provide an objective foundation for morality. In real life yes, people in a western society are going to be found paying their taxes, obeying the laws, not having sex with animals, etc. In such cases they ARE living moral lives. (in the eyes of the world anyway) But, the Q is when people start sliding downhill morally and then one day snap and go off the deep end, what is to prevent the unbeliever? How many school shootings have we seen now that were committed by atheists? Without that objective base for morality unfortunately, there isnt much to prevent people unbelievers from snapping.

Also not having that objective base for morality, their worldview has a large gaping hole in it. It is a severe weakness of it. If God doesnt exist, then basically morality becomes subjective and then there really is no real right and wrong besides what we make for ourselves and that is simply not a good basis for society and law. Maintaining societys require principles that never change such as torture and murder is wrong, self-sacrifice and helping others is good.

Also if morality is subjective, then we are not OBLIGED to do what is objectively right because what is right isnt cut in stone. A person may as well choose to do what is evil because it suits him well. Under subjective morality, how do you presume to judge a man that does what is right in his own eyes? If youre going to say that morality is subjective, then what is right and wrong depends on the feelings and beliefs of people and it not universal.

Answer 3

Some people suffer from the misconception that morality is based on bribery and the threat of torture. The only reason they can find for acting civil towards other people is that God will reward them for it and punish them if they act otherwise.

Fortunately, others have common sense and realize that true morality is exactly the opposite.

Helping others when you expect to be tortured for it is morality. Helping others when you expect to be rewarded for it is not.

Answer 4

The reasoning is that, since atheists don't believe in an absolute moral standard, morality is subjective. This allows people to do what they want. For some reason the argument continues that, since people can do what they like, they will be immoral, because they can justify it.

Answer 5

The idea is that if one's 'moral code' is developed solely from one's own intellect, then it's merely a matter of personal preference and not morality at all. Morality cannot be subjective. It must be objective. Therefore, I would submit that while many atheists choose to act in a manner most would consider moral, atheists are, in fact, amoral as their preference could change based on any number of internal or external influences.

Answer 6

Atheist lack sense of accountability. They can be discipline but due to lack of sense of accountability there is nothing that can stop them from doing wrong things to others. Its logical to believe so,

Answer 7

Many religions believe/assume that morality is specified by their religion. Hence, if you don't believe in their religion, you can't possibly have a system of morals.

Answer 8

Their preachers said so. That is enough proof for some people.
.

Answer 9

It's human nature. Same reason you ask why they assume. Questioning the beliefs and motives of others because they seem clearly counterintuitive. To you. Everyone on earth feels this to some extent about someone else.

Now, the way I see it morality came FIRST - it is not a function of religion. It seems painfully obvious to me that human beings had to learn early on that life was better when they cooperated with one another. To murder, lie, rape, steal, extort, pillage, etc. meant that you might well be skinned alive and used for a nice new set of drums or worse, costume jewelry for the cave chicks. Not being moral might have put an end to you before you reached breeding age. I'd call that a survival instinct. We all have at our core the basic instinct to distinguish "right" from "wrong" in terms of social strategies for survival.

We call those that lack that innate sense of direction psychopaths, not atheists. Then we install them as heads of state, religious and corporate leaders so that we do not have to take responsibility, as individuals, for the ugly things society creates. Everything has its place.

Religion is a function of society, and more specifically, the governance of society. This is why it is so important to separate the two ... all these thousands of years later. It is NO easy task - it's a fight for the same resources amongst the same sorts of individuals.

Atheists are not immoral any more than Believers are immoral. Simple as that.

One can be a highly ethical, upstanding individual with strong moral character without ever setting foot inside a church or believing in any god at all. The fact that there are so many people on the planet that don't subscribe to a monotheistic religion proves this to be the case. One can be evil to the core and go to church every Sunday with an obsessive faith in God and the hereafter.

Religion promotes and regulates fear amongst its followers and provides a means of channeling it as a coping mechanism for the less than palatable realities of life on Earth.

Believers believe the Promise. It is their drug of choice. Atheists don't.

Without their drug believers would not know what to do; they would feel lost, alone and without hope - they need the religious mechanisms for coping with life, and more precisely - to cope with the suffering, pain and despair life entails. They must assign the ugly, nasty, distasteful bits of being human to penance for original sin. It is their reasoning for what we term "evil".

Believers externalize these beliefs and apply them to those who don't believe. It's an easy target. The basic premise - they do believe so they're in like Flynn - atheists don't believe so they're the devil's playthings. It's how THEY would feel without their faith. They think their faith keeps them from being EVIL. So, in their thinking - those who choose not to believe are evil and immoral by default. They don't always believe what they see because they are trained to believe in what they do not see. Logical enough from their perspective - the Bible dictates they do this. It tells them that evil has a reason. If it has a reason, it can be "fought" - battled, won.

The unseen reward, the Promise. The ultimate example of deferred gratification. Heaven. And the thought that if they don't they'll be locked in a fire orgy in hell for ETERNITY.

They point and argue, debase and deride, assert political pressure. "They're this that or the other thing" they will say, "but whatever it is, it isn't us and it isn't right because they don't BELIEVE like we believe!". Golly gee, how do atheists live? How do they know right from wrong? How do they come to terms with suffering, loss and death? How do they FUNCTION outside of the bubble? How dull and lifeless, how utterly without joy their lives must be. They must be mad, crazy, immoral, bottom of the bucket, threat to our survival scum! So silly not to want to walk in the light and not the dark. What is WRONG with those people?

Indeed.

On the other hand, atheists just don't grasp why anyone would or could involve themselves in religious activities. It boggles their minds. Any attempt to say "hey, you can pick your nose and you can pick your friends but you can't pick your friends nose" leads to whining the likes of which fill the airwaves and op-ed columns the world over. Believers band together in weekly meetings to whine in unison over the ultimate demise of life as we know it because of the non-believers!

Employing sweeping generalizations and attitudes about those that don't share a common view isn't just for the keepers of the faith. People from all sorts of public institutions campaign to PROVE they have the right-thinking through sheer force of will. They can range from moderate to extreme along all lines. Religion is just the grandaddy of groupthink.

We, as human beings, tend to perceive others to be like ourselves and find them to be aberrant if they do not meet our expectations or share our ideals and perspectives. Believers in any institution or entity that encourages blind faith or "one way" or "best way" or "right way" in anything at all are fantasy addicts peddling group paranoia.

As such, they want others to be addicted right along with them. An addiction without a source or users ceases to exist. More addicts, more demand, more supply. They HAVE to believe, to feed the addiction - and they have to FEEL that non-believers are LESSER beings because they don't believe - atheists don't support the structure that they themselves cannot live without. If they didn't - what would be the point? It would all dry up and blow away. Recruitment is King in religion. If you don't get to be better than others for your sacrifice, why bother?

It's like taking a pacifier away from a baby. Baby WANTS the pacifier! Needs it! Will scream and cry and rant until you cannot stand it anymore and plug it back in.

So believers tell themselves - generation after generation - that the pacifier is good. Eventually they worship the pacifier. It brings them peace. Sweet! That without it, life would be empty and unbearable - it is the reason they exist at all. They can explain their existence - and yours too - in relation to the pacifier. The pacifier becomes the center of their world and their existence. As happens - they can no longer envision a world WITHOUT the pacifier, and even if you take the pacifier away and another one doesn't exist - they will eventually make a reasonable facsimile and call it a miracle.

Does it get any better? They want you to get it too. Feel the force, Luke.

Are there equally viable non-religious coping strategies for same? Of course there are. Entire populations exist to prove it. There's more than one way to skin a cat, the saying goes.

The greatest advertising scam in history really isn't Coca-Cola. It's heaven. The marketing of a Promise. Cartels for the afterlife - pearly gate power mongers. Who wouldn't want a piece of the pie? The distribution and control of wealth and human resources - multi-level marketing at its finest. They all tax their members and encourage them to give until it hurts. They all want more money. More resources. They want more users.

At the same time, the general populations around the globe want nothing more than to maintain the status quo. Shelter, hot meals, a little loving. Don't rock the boat! Don't even get close enough to let me feel your wake! I'll freak out! I don't even want to know you exist! Just do what you have to do and leave me out of it!

Thousands of years ago people did not read nor write. There are no poloroids, films or minute by minute recorded accounts of anything. That's all NEW. Just traditions of story-telling. People didn't live in cities. They had no electricity, telegraphs or telephones or private investigators. No reporters or citizen action groups. There were no books, libraries, magazines, television, computers, schools, colleges, universities, satellites, rocketships, space telescopes, submarines, airplanes, cars, trains supermarkets or disposable diapers. No bars, clubs, theatres, gyms, bath houses, ice cream or basketball games. Religion was IT in terms of "gathering together" in peace (war, there's always been war). No open public discourse. No "hey, they're doing fine over there, why do we have to prostrate ourselves and pay for the privilege?". There was little global travel (the earth was flat back then) no vacations, no mixing of cultures on a grand scale. Potable water was probably quite the luxury.

People, overall, lived on a subsistence level and life could be bleak even in the best of times. Religion provided an unseen reward for toeing the line. It still does. A social construct and a means by which governing bodies could reach out to and control the populations surrounding them. The original grape vine that provided answers for the nagging questions of the day - where did we come from, what is our purpose, what is the point, and most importantly:

WHY SHOULD WE FOLLOW YOU?

If you don't do this and such, you'll pay.. YOU WILL PAY! It's a promise. The big book says so. If you disagree, we will smite you. In the name of the name that cannot be spoken!

Atheists are godless and godless people are immoral. That's the party line.

People will kick and fight to maintain a way of life and a way of thinking - and will generally fight to the death to do so. It's human nature. And they will vilify those who don't nod along blindly after them.