Atheist Morality
The conversation usually goes like this:
Theist: So who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?
Atheist: The individual does.
T: So if I decide that murder is okay, then it is okay?
A: No, because we have laws against that.
T: So then the government gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?
A: Yes, we have to act in a way that is most beneficial to society.
T: Okay, so then are you saying that murder is okay if a government allows it, such as Nazi Germany?
A: No, because no society would survive if murder was allowed.
T: What if murder of specific groups was allowed? For example, what if a society said that it is okay to kill disabled individuals since they have no ability to contribute to the proliferation of society in any meaningful way. Certainly, society could survive and even become more affluent if we allowed that.
A: That would be wrong, because we are biologically wired to have empathy, which precludes us from doing that kind of a thing.
T: Okay, so you just changed your position. You first stated that a group of individuals get to decide what is right and what is wrong, now you are saying that our morals are given to us by our brain chemistry.
A: I didn't change my position. I believe all of these factors work in conjunction.
T: But they do not, because we can both agree that murder would not be okay if a group of individuals said it was. According to you, that line of thinking is based on our neurological wiring. So let me ask you this: How do you account for individuals like Charles Manson or John Gacy?
A: Those were sociopaths. They lack empathy due to mental illness.
T: So you are saying that all people have empathy, and if I introduce you to any one human without it, you automatically label him a "sociopath"?
That's known as an "ad hoc maneuver". Furthermore, you are operating under a presupposition that wiring for empathy gives us a universal "ought" while the morality of the sociopath is flawed. Why should the empathetic person get to decide what is right? You are deriving an ought from an is, without any appropriate connection between the two.
A: Then our metric can be evolutionary advantage. We cannot build a society if certain behavior is allowed.
T: I've just explained that we could. If we allowed the killing of disabled people, society would more than likely go on and be more prospereous. We would weed out the weak and maintain the strong. I would presume that a society would have to be governed by sociopaths in order for this to be allowed. Imagine that, an affluent society being run by sociopaths. It is conceivable, isn't it?
A: So you believe that God gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?
T: Yes and no. God does not decide. He has a certain character and morality is a manifestation of that character. We are created in His image and therefore we have a moral code written in our hearts.
A: Then how do you account for immorality in the world? And why are atheists able to be moral?
T: Our nature is fallen, but all people-- including atheists-- are created in His image. Only an eternal being who is good by his very nature can account for eternal values. If God doesn't exist, then anything can be permitted at any given time.
A: Whatever.
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
If the story of Lot isn't good enough for you, what with his daughters having sex with him while he's drunk, there's also Judges 19:10 - 20:48, which chronicles the wonderful story of the Levite's concubine, who is raped to death. Huzzah!
Later, the levite cuts her into twelve pieces and sends the pieces to different leaders, so they can get revenge. But still, the levite threw her out to be gang-raped. To death.
Wonderful morality as preached by your Bible.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I think it is. I accept that there are circumstances where there is no choice (self defence, for example), but it is always wrong. It's a VeryBadThing™.
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
In another thread you claimed that everyone deserves to be killed by god. If that is your belief then of course god can't commit murder. You've eliminated that possibility by defining god's actions as such. While no one could cite an instance of god committing murder or god instructing someone to commit murder given that you've ruled out those possibilities by definition, it would also be impossible for you to tell others what an unjustified killing by god would even look like. Since any possible counter-example is assimilated to "justified killing" the claim is trivial. It's true in the trivial sense that you've defined it that way.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Wow! Rape is A-OK with the god of the Old Testament:
Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Are you sure you want to continue with this? Your "Exhibit A - The Bible" is certainly not supporting your case of a rational, absolute morality derived from your religion. And that's just on the subject of rape!
[EDIT addendum]
Just out of curiosity, have you even read the Bible? I mean, really gone from cover to cover and read it, and thought about what you were reading. Because you really aren't presenting a good argument based on your source material. If you were arguing for an absolute morality, it should be obvious that the Bible is moral; and from what I've read (and I've actually read it), the Bible is not a very moral document. The morality is certainly not obvious, and contradicts much of what I was raised to believe is right and wrong.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
The bible isn't just one book. It is a collection of 66 books written over thousands of years.
I don't have the whole Bible memorized, so I will have to get back to you on those particular passages.
It's a fundamental tenet of Christianity. We are all under original sin and the penalty for sin is death. If God wasn't merciful, he would have killed every one of us.
If humankind had kept God's law and God killed them anyway, then God would be killing people unlawfully. But there are no possible universes where that could happen since God is, by logical necessity, consistent with his own nature.
That's true to a certain degree. God cannot murder because his very category of being makes it logically impossible for Him to do so. If God can commit murder, then 1 + 1 can also equal 5. Since morality is a manifestation of God's nature in humanity, it therefore has everything to do with morality.
Morality is the judgement of whether it would be praiseworthy or blameworthy if one's possible actions were enacted by his or her own volition.
No, that is not an implication of moral absolutism. Moral absolutism simply means that there are moral laws that are unchanging and therefore transcend space and time. That does not preclude people from adopting different moral ideas.
I do know what "absolute" means. And since I am using the term, the onus is on you to ask me what I mean by it if you do not know what I mean when I say it.
By your logic, if the majority decided that murder was okay, then it would be okay and the minority who disagreed would not be right.
Source? Link?
And once again, what makes you think that the "average people" are not the ones with damaged brains? Why should I follow their morality instead of the morality of sociopaths?
Already is -- it's Number 3 in the Big Ten List of Rules.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
ZOMG! You're secretly Jewish!
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
Who said it's a factual account of anyone's life? In the Hebrew bible it falls into the "literature" section (Kethuvim), not Torah or the Prophets (Nevi'im).
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
Really?
How about the story of lot? God had lot's family killed just to win a bet.
How is that ethically justified?
Who said it's a factual account of anyone's life? In the Hebrew bible it falls into the "literature" section (Kethuvim), not Torah or the Prophets (Nevi'im).
I don't think he did, however someone is claiming that god never killed anyone unlawfully per se, yet the story of Job is a prime example of it. God murders his family to win a bet with the devil. Didn't kill Job's children because they broke his laws, but because he needed to prove that Job would still praise him even in the worst of times. God really isn't moral is he.