Pitiful Atheists, Waiting for a New Religion?

A number of religious people seem to have a great deal of difficulty comprehending the idea of not being religious, not needing a religion, and not being interested in having a religion. When they encounter or think about secular atheists, they simply refuse to accept the possibility that we could do just find without any religion and aren't even seeking any religion.

Starving Econ Grad writes:

Atheism has destroyed any basis for objective morality. That is a Christian can tell another Christian "Hey, you shouldn't steal" and the other must accept that to remain a Christian.

In naturalistic atheism there's not only no room for God but there's no room for spirituality or anything that is non-evidential (unless it's needed to function, atheists make exceptions there). So atheist #1 can say "You shouldn't steal" to atheist #2. At that point atheist #2 can say a powerful word that destroys any attempt at morality "why?". Atheist #1 will be left giving reasons that boil down to "because I feel that way" or "because we say so". So atheism destroys objective morality.

It's common to see religious believers insist that atheism is incompatible with objective morality, but what's not so common is to find the same people demonstrating any substantive knowledge about the subject. Econ Grad here is no exception to this trend because what we find here is nothing more than a bare assertion. The writer displays no knowledge or understanding of moral philosophy and thus doesn't do anything to demonstrate that absent some sort of "god" premise, objective morals are impossible.

In fact, I strongly suspect that the writer is completely ignorant of the various ways in which philosophers — some atheist, some theist — have developed moral systems in which gods play no roles whatsoever. If the writer did know anything about the topic, the obvious step here would have been to try to address those systems, even if on a quick and superficial level. Nothing of the sort is attempted, though, and I can't believe that it's because it was deemed unimportant. Instead, we just have a straw-man conversation between atheists which doesn’t reflect what actual atheists say or think but merely reflects the writer's bigoted prejudices about atheists.

Now Atheism likely is just a way station onto some other religion. No one wants to live with the uncertainty of not having universal right and wrong. So some human invented pseudo religion will likely arise with a scientific creed. Some atheists in the Singularity Crowd ventures close to religious belief.

It is true that people who are atheists may eventually join some religion — perhaps an atheistic religion or perhaps a theistic one — but that's not very interesting because the same is true of people who are currently religious theists. All this statement says is that people change and doesn't say anything unique or important about atheists in particular. What I think the Econ Grad wants to say is that atheists are necessarily unhappy and uncomfortable living irreligious, secular lives, but what sort of evidence is offered to support this contention? Absolutely none — the writer has nothing whatsoever to back this up and is instead just offering it as an expression of their own prejudices.

In reality an atheist can't be good any better than a squid can climb Mount Everest. For that matter neither can I. However after I die I will be transformed so that I can be good.

So here we finally find the Econ Grad expressing openly and directly the sort of bigotry which typically lies behind these rants, but which most theists have the good manners and sense to avoid saying outright: atheists can't be good people, can't be moral people, and can't be trusted. The bigotry here is no less than asserting that Jews can't be good because they don't accept Jesus as their Messiah, or blacks can't be good because they don't have the genetic material for civilized behavior.

Jeffrey W. Haws comments on the above:

What we do as Atheists is we have to live with the consequences of our actions. No, there isn’t a set of Commandments somewhere that we can follow to stay cool in the afterlife. But whether it’s the law or just within society itself, we know there are consequences to not doing what you’re supposed to do. Treat people how they would like to be treated. It’s actually pretty simple. I don’t need much more than that. What do I need some “universal” list not to actually follow for?

Perhaps some people need a list of commands because they are unable to live good and moral lives on their own. This is unfortunate, and those who are good merely because they are following orders can hardly be described as "moral," but in some cases it may be necessary just to preserve public order and security. Consider, for example, how people who harbor deep-seated bigotry and prejudice might behave without some sort of restraint being imposed upon them.