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

Question

What is the basis for this claim?

Answer 1

It is a clear example of one of the chief misunderstandings about atheist, that we are Nihilist. It is based on the belief that without divine guidance, there can be no moral code.

Answer 2

What is the optimal? What is the best that can be expected of mankind? Where should mankind be? I think these are the questions that the statement claims cannot be answered from an atheists perspective.

In my opinion, the atheist view is outlined in the Humanist Manifesto's I, II and III. II claims Humanism is a religion, but is not really an issue in my mind. If it is a religion or isn't, it is still godless.

But I think one of the III's points, 'working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness,' is probably where atheists claim we should be in the future.

Where we should be as answered by an atheist, is that we should be happy.

It is a strange claim, in HM III, that working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. The trouble is, individual happiness as a goal is the only reason to work to benefit society. But how does volunteering to sweep streets make me happy? How do you determine what actually benefits society anyway? Is it a benefit to society to sweep the street, or to hire someone else to sweep it? The only absolute in current atheism is '...maximizing individual happiness.' I think that atheism is, as humanism is, at its core, selfish. It is also relative.

Neitzche's 'Overman' is the likely optimal for an atheist. This 'superman' has never been seen with humanism as the guiding principal. I think Neitzche developed his 'Overman' concept with this 'help society to become a happy person' idea. And, from my perspective, I don't think we've seen this person, and I don't believe we ever will. Maybe there is an example of 'Overman' who is an atheist, and I'd happily reconsider my 'never' comment.

Selfishness, as an optimal, brings about decay in society and in an individual. Declaring what we should be, from a purely atheistic perspective, in my view, is the 'Overman.' And as I've said, a godless 'Overman' never develops.

Did I stretch things a bit? Over-reach? Offend? If I did any of the three, very sorry.

Answer 3

It has no basis.

No rational basis, anyway. It's just a subtle way to declaring the patently false idea that morals and ethics come from religious teachings.

Answer 4

It is a quote from Ghandi that labors that we know what we are against, but not what we are For. I disagree. I am for knowledge, reason, enlightment, education, love, and living a good life. Knowing that there are no gods and no spirtual world that will intercede for us, so we have to make our lives count while we are alive.

atheist

Answer 5

No one I know claims to be phycic or foretell the future, I thought that was what religionists did. They've made a pretty good botch job of it so far. Ha ha ha ha ha . .

Answer 6

This is a very stupid statement. The simple answer is "what is should be." Why is it so hard to understand that the way things are is the way things should be.

Answer 7

LOL... There isn't a valid basis for a claim like that ... It's ignorant nonsense and bias.

[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.

Answer 8

None. ... Sounds like pure, outright (but mild?) bigotry.

There are a BILLION "should be's" that we can 'declare'!
( Everything from elimination of bigotry to lower refuse levels to reduced carbon footprints to no starvation to ... etc. etc. )
GEEZ... IT'S JUST A GROSSLY SILLY CLAIM, AS WELL.

Answer 9

I'll go you one better. What is the meaning of this claim?

Answer 10

Who cares?

What "should be" is entirely subjective, anyway; and it's completely irrelevant if the impartial, unfeeling Universe disagrees with you.