"Atheists can describe what is, but cannot declare what should be"?

Question

What is the basis for this claim?

Answer 1

The basis is, the assumption that the moral values of an atheist are somehow inferior as a basis for an ethical system, when compared to the moral values of a theist. Most likely, the basis for that assumption is a belief in God-given moral absolute truths - that is, the quote is from a person who believes in God and these absolute truths. However, belief in absolute moral truths is irrational and based strictly on faith.

An atheist declares "what should be," based on values - same way a theist declares it, only the atheist reasonably claims that right & wrong are determined by values, whereas the theist makes the irrational claim that his values, and therefore his sense of morality, are God-given.

Answer 2

Atheists have no objective standard for what might constitute good and evil, and therefore cannot consistently express an opinion on what might be an ideal situation.

Not to say atheists cannot be good [or evil]-- just with no non-empirically observable scientific method to define right and wrong, they must fall back to the standard criteria of theistic morality, and so become indistinguishable from that which they profess to abhor, or adopt the only morality consistent with atheism, ie the Nietzschean 'Beyond Good and Evil' approach which at bottom is 'might makes right', a purely naturalistic morality.

Atheists are therefore left with the dilemma -by the original question- of holding an ideal which is inconsistent, or at least unjustifiable, by atheist reason, or stand by the announcement that there is no 'should be' at all: whatever nature or man has done is the only reality and the only morality.

Answer 3

The question of what should be requires understanding of what is good; anyone can obtain such understanding. That which is good remains good when atheists understand it as good; the goodness of anything does not depend on, nor is it affected by, the religious dis/orientation of the individuals who understand it as goodness.

The claim that atheists cannot declare what 'should be' is incredibly absurd. First, it is a pathetic way that some foolish religious believers try to mentally coerce atheists to become religious. Second, it question begs by definition. It is fallacious for some religious persons to define the good as what their God says is good, and argue from their definition of the good, which they assume is true, that atheists cannot know what is good, that is, that atheists cannot have true definitions of the good because they do not accept any God. What those religious persons ignore is that atheists define the good in non-religious ways, and that secular definitions of the good can be rational and true.

Terribly, some religious people base their conscience, concepts of good and evil, and their morality so much on what their God commands to them is good that they have difficulty recognizing that indeed there are such things as secular moral philosophy and ethics; these provide systematic methods for rationally understanding what is good and evil, or what is ethical and unethical, or what is moral and immoral without having to depend on any God to tell humans the answers. We have reason and we can figure out on our own how to conduct ourselves in good ways.

Answer 4

When some of you say "they"...are you saying that all atheists think alike? Because I don't really agree with that. I can still have hopes and dreams and not believe of a divine creator. I want to one day have a family and I think that there shouldn't be genocide in the world but yet I still don't believe that there is this "creator" who created everything. Their shouldn't be murder of children and mothers, their shouldn't be world hunger, their shouldn't be selfish mongrels ruling whats "right" in today's society! I don't believe in God. Don't attack me for what I believe and I won't attack you for what you believe. So don't assume that just because you can classify me as "atheist" that I'm exactly like every single atheist out there. Everyone is different no matter what they believe in. You can't assume what I believe.

Answer 5

There is no basis-- it is a nonsensical claim. Not only are atheists perfectly equipped to comment on how things should be, they are not pre-committed by dogma to any particular conception of what the "should be" might look like.

Answer 6

It is the idea of logically retracing creating and evolution until you reach a dead end and cannot explain it further without involving some sort of supernatural power (i.e. God). Without this revelation, one cannot hope to explain why things are the way they are ULTIMATELY. They can explain the reasons behind things relevant to the time period they are capable of understanding which is only useful in defining what things are not why they are or what they should be.

Answer 7

and a christian can describe what they were taught to believe and what their "heart" tells them to or simply "I have no explanation for it, other than blind faith" (having faith was also taught) love everyone although in the back of your head know that since there are billions of people out there who do not share your religion (has not accepted jesus) that they are going to hell, along with the millions of christian sinners

.

Answer 8

Slightly weak.

If applied to science alone, it might do better.
"Science can show you how to make penicillin, or Zyklon-B, but cannot tell you which to use on human beings."

But to take just one simple conceptual approach to justice without including a deity:
"Conceive of a social order in which you would willingly participate, given that you cannot specify in advance your place in that society. "

Answer 9

it means you shouldnt consult an atheist when contemplating on life's profound questions like why is there something rather than nothing? or what is the meaning of life?