Do Atheists lack purpose and values?

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's an exchange from another forum (here):

We don't know why we exist or if there is even a 'reason' for our existence.

This is uncomfortable for you, so you joined the religion of your geography to supply you with the answers you desired. Now you pretend to know the unknowable. Sadly, you are not alone, but at least you are not claiming to hear and get knowledge from such entities like some do.

The "gender" fiasco just shows how lost our country and its leaders are with respect to knowing the most primary elements of existence. And that you don't have any idea why or how you came in to being is problematic for a stable existence. Without any basic grounding a person is destined to being blown around like chaff in the wind.

The part in bold. Is there any validity to that point?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Is there any validity to that point?

If someone is raised without moral values, then I can see why their behavior wouldn't be stable. They would be without a moral compass because they have no guide to base their decisions on, other than perhaps making it up as they go along or they just try to satisfy their instincts or whatever makes them feel good, at worst. I don't think that applies to Atheism though, at least not in all cases.. The issue with some atheistic systems of morality is that the moral standards may not be accepted as much as people accept religious morals. Some atheists may just view morals as relative or a sociocultural construct. But I don't exclude the possibility that many Atheists may accept their morals as if they were some absolute truth, just as we live with the illusion of free-will. Based on that point alone, I think that's where the point in post #1 (the part in bold) is wrong.

 

[Data]

Is there any validity to that point?

If someone is raised without moral values, then I can see why their behavior wouldn't be stable. They would be without a moral compass because they have no guide to base their decisions on, other than perhaps making it up as they go along or they just try to satisfy their instincts or whatever makes them feel good, at worst. I don't think that applies to Atheism though, at least not in all cases.. The issue with some atheistic systems of morality is that the moral standards may not be accepted as much as people accept religious morals. Some atheists may just view morals as relative or a sociocultural construct. But I don't exclude the possibility that many Atheists may accept their morals as if they were some absolute truth, just as we live with the illusion of free-will. Based on that point alone, I think that's where the point in post #1 (the part in bold) is wrong.

The point in bold (OP) seems a case of theocratic and politically and socially motivated ideology. You used the word sociocultural. "This country's gone to hell in a handbasket because the Bible is being trampled by the unwashed heathen." There isn't any way in which that sort of thing makes sense to me. Theists don't have a remarkably satisfying record when it comes to morality, whether inspired by God, the Bible or society at large. Not surprisingly, i.e. sin. Their morality is self-satisfying. Atheists would either operate on the same sense of morality, even if inadvertently, or operate on some other secular non-theistic model. Morality, to me, always seemed a strange topic of debate in the atheist vs. theist arena. I look in occasionally to see what all the fuss is about, but I don't get it. The Roman arena - lions, blood, morality, bread and circuses.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

There isn't any way in which that sort of thing makes sense to me. Theists don't have a remarkably satisfying record when it comes to morality, whether inspired by God, the Bible or society at large. Not surprisingly, i.e. sin.

That's a good observation. I've met atheists and agnostics (myself included) that seem to be more moral and respectable than some Christians. I think that alone confirms that atheists can have values and morals.

What I really don't get is when debates on morality between Christians and atheists turns into a pissing contest where each side brings up the number of deaths done by each side, with the Crusades vs. Atheist totalitarian leaders like Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin.

 

[2Dbunk1]

The part in bold. Is there any validity to that point?

Morals are not restricted to just religion. In fact, morals may have been the catalyst for the innovation of religion -- the invention of gods!

Back in caveman days (or before) there were basic morals for the well-being and survival of the tribe, even before the notion of gods. How else would our lineage have survived the advent of humanity during the epochal of time?

 

[Data]

There isn't any way in which that sort of thing makes sense to me. Theists don't have a remarkably satisfying record when it comes to morality, whether inspired by God, the Bible or society at large. Not surprisingly, i.e. sin.

That's a good observation. I've met atheists and agnostics (myself included) that seem to be more moral and respectable than some Christians. I think that alone confirms that atheists can have values and morals.

What I really don't get is when debates on morality between Christians and atheists turns into a pissing contest where each side brings up the number of deaths done by each side, with the Crusades vs. Atheist totalitarian leaders like Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin.

After 30 years of online debate, I have come to the conclusion, right or wrong, just through observation, that at least in the atheist vs theist debate arena, is where primarily militant atheists and theists have created an illusory world in which they live. In this illusory world the militant atheists perpetuate the illusion of intellectual superiority while the theists perpetuate the illusion of moral superiority. This is only a product of the unnecessary sociopolitical foundation that is the true meaning of the conflict. Put simply, the conflict has little to do with the armament used, i.e. gods, the Bible, Quran, morality or science.

An example from personal experience. I once was invited to contribute to Sam Harris' Reason Project. In addition to submitting articles to the (I believe now defunct) website I also posted on the forum. There was a foam at the mouth idiot atheist that responded to my presence on the forum by posting a series of threads with all uppercase letter subject heading denouncing me as "homophobic" due, simply to my Bible beliefs. I hadn't posted anything on the subject, but when I responded by pointing out I was homosexual the same idiot started posting a series of threads insulting me in a very homophobic manner.

I thought it was funny, but it also taught me about ideology before I had come to much of an understanding what ideology means.​