You've given me much to ponder,Michael R. Good day to you,sir.
"I think Atheists are more moral and ethical then the believers ... What do you think?"
It seems I am in the minority on this site, but when I see blanket generalizations, as with anything that contains "atheists are…"; my immediate reaction is always -> WTF?
Atheists, by necessity must agree on one thing and one thing only, a single point of data …and it isn't even a fact.
I can cite examples of unethical and immoral atheists 'til the cows come home, this is not a valid group rallying call, it is a merely point of discussion about morality and ethics.
I think it's a critical error to go the route of "better then them", because it is at best a fallacious patting one's self on the back and a big flashing sign advertising "Hubris Here!"
Sure, some misguided and ignorant theists try to table the argument from morality, but it's easily swept away as being nothing more than a non sequitur.
Why must some of us, who have in common a single and specific non-belief, …play the same silly and irrational game of "better than"?
Isn't it bad (unethical as well as irrational) enough when "they" do it?
In a sense, we are all a minority of one. But I think you are in the majority anyway. (I don't feel obligated to make sense). I think that there is a strong desire for commonality, but many of the ideas that are promoted as "atheist" are in reality, "humanist". Nothing wrong with that, and I consider myself both atheist and humanist. I also consider myself a baker, and am planning on making a rhubarb pie next weekend.
I do appreciate the desire to "move on", and think "what next?", and how tiresome it can be to discuss the same old religious nonsense.
Exactly, why feed into the misconception of a position as an identity, this is a self-defeating irrationality in the end. Ayn Rand (a famous atheist and spittle-flecked batshit-crazy sociopath who thought altruism was evil), …well, …I guess there's not much more to add here, except for the reality that some atheists identify with her "take" on atheism being more than just a single data-point, a negation, a non-belief.
Why invite comparison?
Humanism has a great creed, not all who hold true to it are atheists, not all scientists are atheists, not all skeptics are atheists, etc.
I have no affinity for this idea of a group with a hive-mind with a "no" being not just a basis for inclusion, rather; the means to an exclusion of all who don't "no", while many of the excluded may very well be friends and allies in the battle for the greater good.
It's too much like what fundamentalist theists preach ...and neither ethical or moral as a means or an end..
The Humanist Association in Ottawa (Canada) tried to recruit me to join in the '90s, I thought it was a great idea until I met too many of the group who instead of living by the humanist principles, spent all of their time venting angst at the religious adherence of their own childhoods. As a life long atheist, this made me cringe… I turned them down, they asked why, I told them, "dogma".
Please don't walk on eggs! Just be yourself! You are always supportive thoughtful. If someone doesn't like that, maybe they had a bad day?
I wasn't attacking you, …please don't imply that I was.
I was arguing against an oft touted position "atheists are/aren't", that I don't think deserves merit (unless it's denoting the single non-belief common to all atheists), and gave my reasons why I think it doesn't deserve merit, but more so …self-examination.
Should I be walking on eggshells when it comes to "opinions"?
How we say things is part and parcel of "what we say", I'm with McLuhan on this one, the medium is the message. The point I hope gets taken away from this is: How we word things is of utmost importance if we want the message to be clear.
Again, you're misplacing the target of my dissent, it isn't you or this thread.
It's a mind-set, one that is also a trap. One that many atheists hold, just as theists do, a false entitlement to privilege, and no …this is not something I'm trying to blame on you.