Atheists, what if atheism really does tend toward nihilism, and/or a feeling of freedom to hurt others?

Question

Set aside, for a moment, the fact that the intellectual concept of disbelief in the unsupported doesn't include any of these negative connotations, and consider that many people may just be mentally wired to BECOME sociopaths without an objective punishment and reward system...what if atheism actually does, effectively, cause immoral behavior in people? People who don't understand the minutia or empathy involved in moral interaction with others, that's given, but people nonetheless...

Can we ignore something like that by suggesting they are not REAL atheists, or do we have to look at human safety and suffering pragmatically? Do we have to admit that intellectual ideals can be misdirected into harmful actions, and consequently, are we responsible to prevent harm wherever we can, even at the expense of the ideal?

Answer 1

THIS IS NOT A CUT AND PASTE!!! (btw)

While my personal philosophy does tend toward nihilism (and just to clarify for those that don't know, nihilism is not defined as "a feeling of freedom to hurt others," but a philosophy stating that there is no higher intelligence or power that created existence as we know it and that there is no actual, objective meaning to life at all), I still personally have a strong moral code, however altruistic and human-perspective-biased it may be.

I simply accept that I, a collection of subatomic particles in the form of a complex, organized system, exist and that the singular characteristics of my existence deem it necessary for me HAVE a moral code and that moral code happens to be (IMO) beneficial to mankind, if not at least possessed of a general benevolence toward organized, altruistic existence.

But I do agree with you: I suspect (despite a lack of actual evidence or experience) it IS possible that atheism can lead to immorality of a destructive bent. While I believe that everything we believe to be right and wrong to be relative to illogical human perspective, I consider this to be a BAD thing and do not like the idea of this possibly happening on a massive scale.

However, this can happen with or without "an objective punishment and reward system." Some people may be wired to more easily become sociopaths anyway, regardless of their, or their communities, moral and religious beliefs and laws. Deciding whether or not such an occurrence in a person is more likely with an atheistic point of view is thus problematic.

You could also make the argument that these "sociopath-wired" people would have evolved OUT of the gene pool if it weren't for religion-based altruistic values to hide their true sociopathic tendencies. Sociopaths of course can vary in the severity of their condition and how badly they are willing to hurt others, but for the most part, on the extreme end, their behavior would reduce the chances of their genetic code being passed on another generation.

But to be fair, I should say that you could make the argument that we evolved to be religiously-minded so the human race COULD survive such extremes of immorality. Again, proving anything for sure would be quite an endeavor.

So to answer your questions: "Do we have to admit that intellectual ideals can be misdirected into harmful actions, and consequently, are we responsible to prevent harm wherever we can, even at the expense of the ideal?"

1) Yes, I would consider it more responsible to admit that atheism can potentially lead to nihilism which can lead to a breakdown of moral values, and that a loss of moral values can potentially be so extreme as to expose sociopathic tendencies leading to more harm to society than there would have been should a particular sociopath have been religious instead.

2) Responsibility is another relative altruism where nihilism IS, and where I AM concerned. But I also agree with you that if it causes more harm to the existence, safety and well-being of the human race than good to accept atheism as a race altogether, then it would be more responsible to allow religion despite its inherently massive illogic.

However, as I pointed out already, how is one to know? How do we know which is more harmful? As far as history goes back we've never experience a wholly atheistic society. While we do have examples of inherently atheistic groups causing suffering, we have no proof that it wouldn't cause a small, or even a greatly positive change in humanity. In fact, we have a lot of reasons to believe that it would.

The world is changing. More people are exposed to the idea that they can live without a god every day, and many are finding a new life in that belief. While some are no better for the fact, many are (I consider myself proof of that).

Though I won't see it happen in my lifetime, I'd like to see the world find a better path through some form of agnosticism/atheism. I'd like this to be the next step in our cultural development, but you're right, before that step is taken, if it is taken, more study and more thought must be put into whether or not it really is the higher road, if it is even possible to prove or even become more confident of either conclusion through study.

I sincerely hope that it is for the human race as it has been for me: a change for the better.

~atheist~

Answer 2

Girls Details Birthday:16th April 1985 Birth time:07:35:00 Place of birth:Jabalpur Boy's Details Birthday:27th Sept 1986 Birth Time:13:44:00 Place of Birth: Udhampur J.K

Answer 3

2.4% of the world is atheistic and 12% is agnostic. So almost 15% don't believe in heaven and hell. Yet far less than 15% are engaged in capital crimes. Heaven and hell were never believable and consequently are not much of a deterrent. The deterrent for most is societal punishment.

Atheism does lead to nihilism, when all the arguments are pushed to the limit. So this is something we have to face. "Happy nihilism" is a new, much more positive alternative to traditional nihilism, and hopefully it will catch on as a new lifestyle.

Answer 4

You're assuming that religion is the only way of providing a reward/punishment structure. Societal approval or disapproval is also a potent r/p system, and might even be more effective since it's more immediate. In order to support your hypothesis that atheism would cause "immoral behavior", you'd have to first define what you mean by that (or by "moral behavior"), and then demonstrate that it's actually the atheism that causes it. And, I'm willing to bet that if you could look at crimes committed by atheists vs believers, the atheists will come out looking pretty good.

Of course intellectual ideas can be misdirected. Organized religions have a long history of doing exactly that - consider the Inquisition.

Answer 5

Okay, all the intellectual crap and double speak aside: JUST BECAUSE A PERSON DOESN'T BELIEVE IN GOD, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY AREN'T A MORAL PERSON!!! That stuff pisses me off and I'm not even an atheist! No, I don't believe that they're right, but not believeing in God doesn't mean that a person doesn't know right from wrong! I'm so sick of this!!

Answer 6

I think you're structuring your premise so as to lead the people who respond to the result you want. I don't think that atheism automatically leads to nihilism, sociopathy, or immorality. Atheists can be constructive, positive, helpful people who support their community, pay their taxes, help others, and get to sleep in on Sunday morning. What could be wrong with that?

Answer 7

Actually the people who want the freedom to hurt others tend to be religious fundamentalists since the belief that a God exists and can forgive sins allows them to not feel guilty about hurting others.

Answer 8

Nihilism is a choice some people freely take. It is not a standard as it is in religion.

Answer 9

It seems to me that sociopathy develops regardless of theistic belief. There are more than enough examples throughout history to show that as an objective punishment and reward system, religion doesn't prevent nasty people from doing nasty things. Also, religion has the drawback that what it chooses to punish and reward is a reflection of the values of an ancient society, not a modern one. Laws and societal norms, while of course still not perfect in terms of preventing immoral behaviour, can at least be updated to reflect changing values.

Answer 10

Atheism can be dangerous without human compassion. We learn compassion through each other, empathy, sympathy etc... Without compassion (selflessness) we become completely selfish. So yes, what's to stop people from murdering who they don't like, stealing when they want something, etc... Some would argue that that is true bliss... Complete selfishness.

Learned compassion and morals keep us moderate

Answer 11

The only thing required to be a *real* atheist is the non-belief in god. As far as what people do after that, it is up to them. There are immoral, irrational people in all walks of life. To think that one who is labeled an atheist or Christian or even Satanist means they now can do wrong without feeling bad is not the issue. More than likely, people are the way they are and tend to fit their beliefs and label themselves accordingly. If I want to harm another person, then it is probably not my religion (or atheism) that leads me to be that way. It is more than likely a predisposition based on my genes, environment I was raised in, perhaps a situation in the past where a member of a certain group may have harmed me and it manifested itself into a hatred for that group, etc.