I recommend the Forums at FriendlyAtheist, or the Forums at ex-christian.net, or if you are really up for a challenge there’s Pharyngula.

Honest questions are fine. Telling us that we’re amoral and just as bad as Hitler is not OK.

As to “Social Darwinism”, it should properly be called “eugenics”, because it really doesn’t have anything to do with Darwin’s work. Darwin observed that populations of animals change and diversify over time due to natural selection, a process that is not trying to produce any specific result. The most successful combination of traits for surviving and breeding in a particular environment is what is passed down to the next generation, or more simply “nothing succeeds like success”.

Artificial selection has been known and utilized by human farmers for thousands of years. Our modern farm animals and plants are nothing like their ancient forebears, and this is a result of deliberate selective breeding. They are more specialized to our needs, and this always comes with a trade-off. Our cows must be milked twice a day, our sheep are stupid and must be sheared annually, our turkeys are so enormous that they cannot breed without assistance, and modern wheat and corn also require human assistance to spread. None of these could survive in the wild. As Temple Grandin says, they are “unbalanced”. They are not better than their ancestors, they are different, better in some ways and much worse in others.

The only ideas that eugenics might have picked up from Darwin are that humans are subject to the same natural forces as other animals, and that we were once different than we are now. Thinking that we could or should try to do a better job of producing humans than happens naturally, that idea didn’t come from Darwin.

Stalin and Mao were motivated by what they call communism, not atheism. As shown by the Scandinavian countries, atheists who are not communists (i.e. most atheists) believe in improving the human lot, not suppressing it. Nowhere in atheism is there a suppression of humanity. Communism is not atheism. Sweeney Todd was a barber. That does not make every barber a serial killer.

Have you noticed that the countries that have the most freedom and human rights are post christian? In the bible, in which jesus proclaims (John 5:18) that the Old Testament laws are still in effect, there is slavery, stonings for trivial offenses, mass extinctions caused by your god, all sanctioned by your bible.

There is no such thing as “atheistic morality”. There is morality and there is blind obedience. I’ll give you the blind obedience, and hold on to a morality that does not call for killing gays or denying people equal rights. Morality is not an absolute. Many christians claim that if their god told them to kill, they would. That is not my idea of morality.

You come to an explicitly non-religious site to spew your garbage and then cry if people here say that your childish superstitious beliefs are totally useless and your invisible friend does not exist. You throw up what an ideology that has nothing to do with atheists who do not believe in communism as being the fault of atheists rather than the fault of the communists. We can throw up Torquemada, the 30 year war, the Irish “troubles”, the crusades and other acts done in the name of christianity. Add islam to the mix and the atrocities multiply.

It is convenient that you distinguish between communists and atheists. Were Staliin and Mao Tse Tung atheists or not ? There is no doubt they were atheists and it is not surprising that communism and atheism are compatible ideologies.

As to violence being done in the name of religion, that has happened in the past and currently occurs and it is wrong. (I mean that in an absolute sense) However it is not in any way accurate to judge a religion by its abuses while judging your own ideology by it’s best conduct. Do you want to compare the amount of compassionate aid done in the name of Christ to any other religion, or ideology ? No other group comes close. Have you ever noticed that most of the countries that currently have the most freedom and human rights are countries that were historically founded on Christian principles ? Islam is a different story but I don’t ascribe to the idea that all religions are created equal. It is a matter of debate as to whether the violence connected with Islam is in harmony with its basic teachings or no. Certainly we have reason to be sceptical in that regard. I would suggest that if one concedes the ideological connection between atheism and the actions of the communistic/atheistic regimes we have reason to be sceptical there as well. (Although I am not holding my breath on that one.) Either way you have still given no reason anyone should accept anyone else’s morality, just gone off on an anti-religion rant (partially justified) but not really dealing with the core issue here. That’s O.K. if the best atheist thinkers of the past and present haven’t been able to give a rational foundation for “atheistic morality”, I shouldn’t be surprised that none are offered here. Please reply with the rational foundation for atheistic morality or refrain. I’ve heard all the anti-christian hate rhetoric previously.

Hitler, like many christians at the time, felt justified in considering the “killers of jesus” as an inferior race deserving of extermination. There is a difference between Natural Selection and artificial selection.

As to blowing things up, religion, not atheism, was the driving force for the World Trade Centre and other suicide bombings.

It is the christian who can be forgiven for the most horrible atrocity. We have to live with our conscience, so we act in a way that our conscience does not need to be forgiven.

Your story about Joe could equally be applied to the religious. Killing and religion do go hand in hand. Atheism, unlike religion or communism does not use killing as a recruiting tool.

Discussion, much better!

First, we should agree on what a moral code actually is. A true hermit would have no need of “morals” because he would be unable to harm another person by anything he did. When I think of morals, I would say it’s those rules that we have developed to regulate interactions among people. These rules are slightly different in different societies, but most of the basic ones have come out the same (don’t kill people without reason, or hurt them without reason or take their stuff, etc.) because those are the ones that work. Cultures without those basic rules would not have survived.

People are a mix of agressively selfish and naturally cooperative. So we need to work out rules that allow us to balance this. As a social animal, empathy is one of the things that allows us to live in groups. Reciprocal altruism is also important (I help you now, because in the future I may be the one who needs help). All of this goes into our “moral code”.

I depend on the society I live in, and very few of us could exist without there being consistent cooperation among many many people. I don’t want to live in a society where people randomly blow each other up. I don’t want my children to live in such a society either. So I don’t do such things, and I support there being social pressure against it, laws forbidding it, and punishment for those who do. I don’t need a preacher to tell me this is a good idea.

Enough for this post. Work to do, I’ll comment more later.

I’ve met Dawkins, and read books by all four “Horsemen” as well as many other books. I agree with some of what they have to say, and disagree with other things. That’s what thinking for yourself looks like. For example, Dawkins is masterful when he is writing about biology, good when discussing belief, impractical on dealing with childhood religious indoctrination, and often clueless about women’s issues.

I criticize value systems when they excuse or encourage anti-social behavior in those who hold them. No value system should have immunity from criticism, or be considered absolute. Even if such a thing as an objective moral standard were to exist (and I don’t think it does), the human understanding and interpretation of it should still be able to be questioned.

The fundamental “belief” of atheism is that we don’t believe in gods. That’s it. From there, we’re on our own in working out what the best rules are for allowing people to live and flourish together. I don’t know any “amoral” atheists, and most of the atheists I know are very ethical people who think very deeply about such questions.

As for Sartre, I would agree that there’s no objective meaning to life. The meaning of your life is not to be handed to you or discovered, it’s something you have the ability to create for yourself. And that’s much better “good news” than anything I ever heard in a church.