
seen from Austria
seen from United States

seen from Netherlands

seen from India
seen from South Korea
seen from United States

seen from Austria
seen from T1
seen from Australia
seen from Russia
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Austria
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Netherlands
Atheist Ethics and Abortion
Atheist Ethics and Abortion
Some atheists seem to have strongly held beliefs about a whole host of things that have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence any deity/god/supreme being. And they are not always as clear about the evidence behind those beliefs as they could be. For example, there is the ‘supernatural’. Most atheists do not believe in any form of telepathy, extra sensory perception, reincarnation,…
View On WordPress
Christians as Immoralists
Nietzsche provocatively labels himself an “immoralist”. This is something gleefully seized upon by theists who absurdly think that the logical result of atheism is a total rejection of all morality. Possibly the most famous and unapologetic of all philosophical atheists himself declared himself an “immoralist”! And the word “immoralist” is simply assumed to mean “one who rejects all morality”.…
View On WordPress
It's a fairly simple observation - I'd go so far as to call it obvious - that people get more done when they work together. We can set up systems: share resources, divide labor, concentrate on one task or one type of task instead of having to do everything for ourselves. We may not always enjoy it - there's friction, and disagreements, and power struggles - but it does get more done. So, in terms of making sure that people have both basic necessities and little luxuries, cooperation is highly beneficial. Cooperation, then, is why people tend to live in groups: tribes, towns, nations, and other social systems. Those sorts of social systems work best, however, when everybody involved is playing by the same rules - and, I think, when those rules have provisions that allow them to adapt to new or changing information. That means, basically, that everybody shares the same set of morals. That never actually happens, of course, but any functioning social group will have a workable approximation: a social contract. Part of the difficulty in establishing such a contract, however, is what project managers like to call "buy in". Basically, if you want to implement a new system, or change an existing system, you have to get enough people to agree in order to make the change work. And it's easiest to get people to agree voluntarily is if the system (or the change) treats everyone fairly (or more fairly). In other words, whatever the specifics of your social contract, it will work best if you treat other people the way you would want to be treated if you were in their place. And there you have a working atheistic basis for morality: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Michael Mock