It is true that all individuals are capable of morality/ethics. However, atheism as a whole does not possess a moral quality. Think about it. Atheism has no code, whatsoever, other than the denunciation of God. After individuals unify under that one rule, the rest of their code of conduct is up to them to decide. They choose whatever actions, beliefs, or theories they want and label them as ethical or unethical --- read carefully “choose whatever they want”. Right off the bat atheists are already taught to be selfish. Selfishness is not ethical.
It is hard to unify atheists, other than just that, atheists, because each individual’s ethical belief system may be completely different from a fellow atheist. Sure, none of them believe in God, but one may respect money and power, while another focuses on love and charity as the reason to live. It is therefore also hard to assume that, as a whole, atheists are ethical.
For perspective, briefly consider it as a racial assumption instead. All Mexicans can be unified under the fact that they all have a brown tone to their skin. But just because this is true, it doesn’t necessarily mean all Mexicans are alike in every other way. Not all of them even live in the same country! They have different genes, they have different morals, they have different ancestors. Yet they are still Mexicans. It is also unfair to assume that all brown skinned folk are Mexican. To be fair, it is just as unreasonable to assume all atheists are unethical.
However, if considering atheism as a religion, it gives followers no reason to be good, nothing makes them strive to be a better person -- except themselves. They have no reward or punishment, they have no role model, and they have no supervision, no one telling them “That’s wrong.” An anonymous, yet wise, individual once stated: “Conscience is what one does alone in a room in a room full of temptations.” Atheists create their own conscience. A minimalist might deny himself every temptation in that room, claiming he is happy with what he has. A Catholic might punish himself for even thinking about failing to uphold his morals. Yet an atheist? How can anyone know (except for the individual atheist stuck in the room) how that person would react to the temptations? There is nothing to inform the rest of society, nothing to give them reason to believe the atheist would not eat those delicious yet fattening chocolate frosted donuts.
Because atheism requires nothing but one code of conduct, to not believe in God, it is therefore unfair to assume anything else about any of those individuals. Who is to say atheists are ethical or unethical? They, by definition, have no other qualities.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Again what I don't like about religion is that a significant number of people who use it as a paradigm to see the world get SO FAR OFF TRACK they mistake prejudice for profundity.
(1) Atheism is lack of a belief in God or gods, so you're right it doesn't entail a moral code in and of itself. That is why atheists do not base their morals on atheism. Hopefully, they base it on reason. There are a number of moral codes compatible with atheism that provide the person with a wonderfully moral life. Perhaps that is why atheists comprise such a low percentage of the prison population.
(2) There is something VERY telling here. The author of this blog equates "choose whatever you want" with "Right off the bat atheists are already taught to be selfish". This person cannot imagine that someone may WANT to be a helpful, caring, compassionate, productive functioning member of society. This ignorant prejudice is NOT a good thing and it stems DIRECTLY from religious thinking.
(3) The fact is that we live in societies. If one is going to prosper in a society one needs to cooperate. Societies has been a major part (perhaps THE major part) of our environment over recent evolutionary history. Evolution has instilled in us both a desire to cooperate, a sense of fair-play, and an ability to detect when people violate these standards. Without the unquestioned dogma of religion telling them otherwise, an atheist can by reason see that any society that allows him to be unjust to someone else, can just as easily allow others to be unjust to him. This rationale leads him to not only the Golden Rule (something that virtually every society has come up with ... even Christian ones), but it gives him a framework to reason about other things that may arise anew. For instance, instead of saying that homosexuality is a sin and therefore wrong ... period; a atheist may reason that one person's sexual orientation need not affect him in any way.
(1) Again, the deliterious effects of religion thinking shine through ... "It is therefore also hard to assume that, as a whole, atheists are ethical." Really?? MOST people, regardless of their religious preferences, are incredibly ethical under most conditions. Sure there are SOME people who aren't. But for every thief, pedophile, or person who takes unfair advantage of the poor and elderly there are thousands of people who don't. So why can't one assume that any particular atheist is ethical? ... The answer is the prejudice that stems directly from religious thinking.
(2) Again, no matter what objective standard of morality you want to measure, atheists do VERY well in real life .... at least as good as Christians.
"To be fair, it is just as unreasonable to assume ALL atheists are unethical" [emphasis added] < sarcasm on > Gee thanks, that is mighty .... Christian of you<sarcasm off >
So we are not ALL unethical? Just most of us? Excuse me if I do not take this as compliment.
(1) Atheism is no more a religion than health is a disease. Atheism is the LACK of a religion.
(2) One need not be religious to be good. In fact, it is quite clear that one can be good without religion and one can be quite bad with religion. Therefore, religion is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to be good.
Excuse me ... we have our parents, teachers, and society rules. We also have a brain that is unfettered by unquestioned religious dogma that allows us to see the value of moral constraints.
Of course we do. So do religious people. EVERYBODY CREATES THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE.
Religious people claim that God is the ultimate moral authority. BULLSHIT!!
Here is a thought experiment, suppose God were to appear to us and prove himself beyond reasonable doubt to be God. Now suppose God says, "Thou shalt dip thy baby's feet in boiling oil, for their cries are a balm to the spirit of the holy", would that make dipping baby's feet in boiling oil for no other reason than to hear them scream a moral act? I would hope the answer to that question is obviously .. NO!!
If not even God can designate dipping babies' feet in boiling oil for no other reason than to hear them scream then God CAN'T be the ultimate moral authority. There is something BEYOND God that tells us that is an immoral act. That something is the sense of fair play that EVOLUTION has instilled in us.
As more evidence that religious people also make their own conscience is that almost all religious people DO NOT FOLLOW SCRIPTURAL MORALS ... and that is a VERY GOOD THING. Almost no religious people advocate stoning homosexuals to death. Almost no religious people advocate taking unruly children to the gates of the city and killing them. Almost no religious person thinks that a woman who fails to cry out when being raped should be killed.
Oh wait a second, I'm being unfair. That is "Old Testament", Christians believe that after Jesus came God decided that those rules no longer applied (why not? If they are no longer good now, why were they a good thing then?). It is the "New Testament" of peace and love that applies now.
Well the New Testament IS an improvement morally over the Old Testament. But it ain't that great either. For instance, not that many people believe that a person who has a divorce is necessarily an immoral person, nor do people believe that one must hate their mothers and their fathers in order to find God. Yet, Jesus' teaching are that divorce should not be permitted and that one is not worthy of him unless they DO hate their parents. Most Christians rightfully reject these teachings. They even reject them so heartily that they deny that is what Jesus REALLY meant even though that is what the bible REALLY says he said.
A "minimalist" may also take everything in the room and deny having done it. A Catholic may never give his indiscretion a second thougth. "How can anyone know (except for the individual [minimalist or Catholic] stuck in the room) how that person would react to the temptations?"
"There is nothing to inform the rest of society, nothing to give them reason to believe the [minimalist or Catholic] would not eat those delicious yet fattening chocolate frosted donuts"
Again we have a telling prejudice showing through. The author of the blog rightfully recognizes that atheism is limited to a belief concerning the existence of God or gods, but he cannot recognize that NOBODY is limited to that belief and that belief only. The "qualities" of atheists are NOT limited to that belief. Atheists have other qualities as well. Some are doctors, some are lawyers, some are police officers, some are pond scum ... just like Christians (surprise, surprise).
The only advantage we have is that we are not fettered with the unthinking dogma of religious belief to form our moral guidance. We can actually REASON about things. Overall, we do pretty good. I think our collective morals compare VERY WELL to that of any other group you may want to choose.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I could never refute this as thoroughly as DB. All I can add is this; you claim that Atheism is, at heart, based on selfishness. My question is this- what is not selfish about doing good deeds in order to get into heaven? And if getting into heaven is not what motivates charity in Christianity, how is a christian any more motivated to do good than an atheist?
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I don't think one's belief in a high power has anything to do with one's capability to act ethically. Right and wrong is common sense for the most part, a God doesn't need to define it.