Since Atheists embrace what they think Science reveals, who do they embrace?

Question

on Social Issues? since every Government who embraced Atheism or communism failed such as Stalin who do you embrace on social issues? who do you think has the right to dictate morality, economics, society as a whole?

Do you believe in Majority rules? who gets to decide? people withe the loudest voice? people who cause civil dis-obedience? people with the most money? Who????

People who use the constitution to there advantage?

And lastly is people get to decide what's moral or immoral in thier own eyes what's the risk or advantage?

Answer 1

I'm an atheist, a vigorous anti-communist, and a scientist. I personally believe in freedom, and less government control. The less control the government has over our lives, the better we all are.

Answer 2

First atheists do not embrace science any more than you embrace science. That is silly.

Next up, I want a government that respects the rights of its citizens. To do that, the government needs to be religous neutral. It should neither prohibit or encourage religion. Plain and simple. People have the freedom of religion. A government that is in the religion business cannot take care of all if its citizens.

Morality is a social issue. It is decided upon by the people. The morality of today is much different that the morality of 100 years ago. The morality in one part of the US might be different than the morality of another part of the US.

Also, why do you lump communism in with atheism? Ok, there were communist countries that tried to enforce atheism on their people. That was completely wrong of them. Those governments were ignoring the rights of their people. A government that pushes religion is no different than one that abolishes. Both forms of government will be trampling on the rights of its people.

Answer 3

"...every Government who embraced Atheism or communism failed..."

No government ever embraced atheism. Stalin declared himself god and acted accordingly.

"who do you think has the right to dictate morality, economics, society as a whole?"

I'd like to point out that atheists only agree on one thing, and one thing only.

This particular atheist likes the idea of self-determination, so I'd prefer that we as a society determine morals, economics, etc.

"Do you believe in Majority rules?"

Believe? As in, do I believe that such a thing exists? Yes. Do I prefer to live under majority rule? No, I like the democratic republic we think we have now (in the U.S.).

"Who????"

Hopefully, an informed electorate with a respect for individual rights -- like the ones provided in our constitution.

"people get to decide what's moral or immoral in thier own eyes what's the risk or advantage?"

I'd prefer that we as a society using reason, logic, and the knowledge we've accumulated over the centuries decide what is moral and what is not, as opposed to the millenniums old writings of long dead, semi-literate goat herders.

Determining the risks and/or advantages would take to long, and require too much study to devote here.

Answer 4

Just because governmental systems that based themselves on atheism failed doesn't mean that we're incorrect or ignorant on social issues and have no one to embrace. Also, our government has a few political partie that a lot of atheists embrace--to name one, the libertarian party. However, what's nice is, we can choose to vote for whoever the heck we want. We don't have to be Republican or Democrat. We can *gasp* think for ourselves. Parties with atheist supporters and candidates haven't been elected to power, and therefore no Atheist American based party has ever been given the chance to prove that they can run the country correctly. If we want to point fingers at bad political ideas, let's take a look at George Bush, that wonderful Christian president of ours. We've had some pretty crappy Christian presidents, but we never learn to start electing new people with fresh beliefs and ideas. Maybe instead of worrying about who atheists affiliate with, Christians should start worrying about who they do.

What do you mean what's the risk or advantage of making a moral code in our own eyes? Are you being moral just because there's a 'risk' involved? Oh wait, yes, you probably are. Christians are moral because they're afraid of hell and God's wrath. Atheists have to be moral on their own account and for the sake of being moral. Now, you tell me, which of those should be more highly acclaimed?

Answer 5

I think a lot of people confuse atheists with evil. Personally, I don't believe morals have anything to do with religion and that goes right along with social issues. Human and common knowledge is more then enough to decide what to do in certain situations, I'm sure not everyone asks themselves "what would jesus do?"

The main reason a lot of people are atheists is because religion hasn't successfully separated from government. This question you're asking, you're suggesting that government and religion are somehow joint in decision making.

In my opinion, whether there is a god or not...religion is too often used to control people through government and too often an excuse for wars.

Answer 6

I don't embrace anyone when it comes to Social Issues. I don't think anyone has the right to dictate ANYTHING as a whole. I think we should compromise when it comes to laws and issues, but there are certain laws that should be universal, such as those against murder, hurt of another human being or living creature, etc. As far as other things like drinking, drugs, I think it's up to the individual and, should they mess up, whether or not they're capable of learning from their mistakes.

And not all Atheists accept science.

Answer 7

I have to say that the thing I embrace is the goodness of aperson.

The inner goodness. The person that donates without looking over the should to see if god is watching.

The person who helps another no matter their religion.

I embrace the person that has the courage to be a good person without being forced or needing to conform.

I embrace a religion that does no0t teach hate... there is none to date. If I do not believe in a specific religion... according to them I will go to hell. That, in my book, is hate.

I think that the majority has the privilege and the loudest voice. Whether some of them hypocrates deserve it is another question.

Answer 8

Your comments indicate that you have never studied moral philosophy. If you had, you wouldn't be making these obvious logical mistakes.

You say "every Government who embraced Atheism or communism failed."

Most of the founding fathers were nonreligious people who based their beliefs on the philosophy of the Enlightenment Movement -- which is exactly the philosophy followed by most atheists and agnostics.

In addition, democracy was invented by the Greeks -- who believed in what you would think are false gods.

Educate yourself before you do this again.

Answer 9

Umm, our government embraces all forms of belief, and non-belief, and it hasn't failed.

The KEY is acceptance.

Democratic societies work out what is best for the majority. Dictatorships go by the will of the leader. This is all basic political science and sociology.

My beliefs coincide with the country I live in (America.) If they did not, I'd leave. I don't like everything, but I like enough to stay.

People do decide what is moral and immoral, but whether they act on their beliefs is a different story. All actions carry consequences, as our overcrowded prisons have proven.

Answer 10

You don't understand atheism. We don't follow some arbitrary set of rules set out by the head atheist. We can have differing views. We don't congregate in large numbers and reinforce each others beliefs nor isolate ourselves from people with differing views for fear of contamination of our ideals and principles. We think for ourselves instead of asking someone else to do our thinking for us.

So, to answer your question, you'll get as many different answers as atheist you ask.

Show me a theocracy and I'll show you a failed society.

Yes, I believe in majority rule, as long as there is a separation of church and state. Umm, don't you understand 'majority'?

Me deciding what is moral is much better than relying on someone else to decide for me. I can look at the situation, weigh the pros and cons, make an informed decision and act on it. Relying on some head of a church to decide what is moral is foolish in my eyes. I have never met the person, I don't know what their criteria for morality is, I don't know how honest or trustworthy they are and I don't know what their motives are. Why would I trust a stranger to make an important decision for me? Would you trust me to decide where you should send your children for schooling?

Answer 11

Right and wrong are often just put upon social norms. You can go back 80 years in American culture alone and see vast differences on what's right and wrong. There's always the basics: don't kill each other, don't have sex with dead things, that pop up in most cultures though. Most people do have a basic sense of morality instilled into them, and it's just molded by their surroundings.