Atheism is amoral

comana · Oct 21, 2017

HenryM said:
That's utility you are describing. And it would be so if this is atheistic universe.

But morals in our universe don't come from a contract, just like love doesn't come from a contract.

That is literally the definition of morality. You can continue to define morality in the lense of your worldview and it takes nothing from mine.

Nithavela · Oct 21, 2017

HenryM said:
That's utility you are describing. And it would be so if this is atheistic universe.

But morals in our universe don't come from a contract, just like love doesn't come from a contract.

HenryM · Oct 21, 2017

Strathos said:
Comparing kill counts to try to claim some kind of moral high ground has always seemed rather morbid and pointless to me.

I agree.

HenryM · Oct 21, 2017

comana said:
That is literally the definition of morality. You can continue to define morality in the lense of your worldview and it takes nothing from mine.

Atheist can define things however he likes. It doesn't change the fact that your morality was given to you by God.

durangodawood · Oct 21, 2017

HenryM said:
Atheist can define things however he likes. It doesn't change the fact that your morality was given to you by God.

Thats a matter of faith.

comana · Oct 21, 2017

HenryM said:
Atheist can define things however he likes. It doesn't change the fact that your morality was given to you by God.

If I accepted that as fact I wouldn’t be an atheist. Facts are ground in evidence and your claim has not met the requirement of evidence for me.

expos4ever · Oct 21, 2017

HenryM said:
You are not explaining morality, but utility. Utility is amoral, void of moral, it's just something that's useful to you.

You are making a sweeping claim without supporting it. As others have pointed out, you have a pattern of "rigging the game" - assuming your position is correct, and then using obviously circular reason to pass off your assumptions as legitimate conclusions.

So please tell us - why is "utillity" amoral?

HenryM · Oct 21, 2017

comana said:
If I accepted that as fact I wouldn’t be an atheist. Facts are ground in evidence and your claim has not met the requirement of evidence for me.

That's true.

I don't understand why all the fuss in this thread.

Atheism provides this kind of "morality": If something is good for my pleasure in this world, I accept it, if something is bad for my pleasure in this world, I try to block it.

That's the basis of social contract you are describing.

But it doesn't make one thing inherently good or bad, it just makes it personally useful or not useful. That's what I am saying all along.

The downside is that truth by itself is also neither good nor bad in atheistic universe. It's just a utility. If truth is not useful, what's the value of it? It's all from nothing, by chance, into nothing anyway. As one of the poster said, "we believe we have this one life and we try to make the most of it." If getting the most of it sometimes involves telling a lie, cheating etc, who's to say that that's inherently bad? If a person is going to get better life, "this one life we have", by lying and cheating, maybe sporadically maybe constantly, that's not bad at all for that person. In fact that's pretty wise and intelligent.

Rajni · Oct 21, 2017

HenryM said:

No it's not a fact, because that statement was not quantitative nor had comparisons in it. If "history is full of atrocities that have been committed by people thinking they are doing will of Abraham's, Isaac's and Jacob' God" then it's a fact that "history is much much fuller of atrocities that have been committed by satanists, worshippers of false gods and atheists."

Click to expand...

You're adding words to the original statement, which was:

"History is full of atrocities that have been committed by people thinking they are doing God's will."

That statement is a fact. And scripture (which has already been posted) also admits to it being done. And no, it doesn't, then, automatically follow that "history is much much fuller [sic] of atrocities that have been committed by satanists, worshippers of false gods and atheists".

comana · Oct 21, 2017

HenryM said:
That's true.

I don't understand why all the fuss in this thread.

Atheism provides this kind of "morality": If something is good for my pleasure in this world, I accept it, if something is bad for my pleasure in this world, I try to block it.

That's the basis of social contract you are describing.

But it doesn't make one thing inherently good or bad, it just makes it personally useful or not useful. That's what I am saying all along.

The downside is that truth by itself is also neither good nor bad in atheistic universe. It's just a utility. If truth is not useful, what's the value of it? It's all from nothing, by chance, into nothing anyway. As one of the poster said, "we believe we have this one life and we try to make the most of it." If getting the most of it sometimes involves telling a lie, cheating etc, who's to say that that's inherently bad? If a person is going to get better life, "this one life we have", by lying and cheating, maybe sporadically maybe constantly, that's not bad at all for that person. In fact that's pretty wise and intelligent.

You are the one defining an atheist’s concept of morality in these terms. You have twisted the concept of social contract defining morals as a selfish utility.

Not one atheist in this thread has agreed with your definition of morality as it applies to an atheist worldview. Your simplistic “if it feels good do it” is the opposite of a social contract. This concept carried out without regard to how it affects others is sociopathic.

HenryM · Oct 21, 2017

comana said:
This concept carried out without regard to how it affects others is sociopathic.

Yes it would be sociopathic if this was actually universe without God. But since God exists, He is provider of inherent morality to all humans. Some just deny His existence and define theories to support their position.

Rajni · Oct 21, 2017

HenryM said:

Yes it would be sociopathic if this was actually universe without God. But since God exists, He is provider of inherent morality to all humans. Some just deny His existence and define theories to support their position.

Click to expand...

Well now this I can agree with simply because I believe that God's light is in everyone (John 1:9), regardless of their belief system or lack thereof.

I believe we are all extensions of Him, and can be inspired to do whatever is right and good under the circumstances without even having to believe first that He exists. Heck, there are stories of animals performing heroic acts apparently of their own volition, without having a particular ideology that they're trying to adhere to.

In Him we live and move and have our being, no creed required beforehand.

HenryM · Oct 21, 2017

RayJeena said:
That statement is a fact. And scripture (which has already been posted) also admits to it being done. And no, it doesn't, then, automatically follow that "history is much much fuller [sic] of atrocities that have been committed by satanists, worshippers of false gods and atheists".

Statement was surely not a fact. And you are threading on some dangerous grounds, seems to me, by what can be perceived as defending murderous satanists, worshippers of false gods and atheists. (I'm talking about murderers from those three groups.)

John 16:2 says: "They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God."

Jesus is talking exclusively about His believers who are going to be murdered. And He is primarily referring to non-believing Jews who are going to be orchestrating those murders. As has happened.

Poster here was using his statement that "history is full of atrocities that have been committed by people thinking they are doing God's will" primarily as an argument against Christians, since he is talking to me, a Christian, and he is using God with capital G, he's not saying a god or gods.

Jesus' words in John 16:2 cannot be applied to persecution of anybody except as a persecution of believers in Jesus Christ, and that was not poster's intention, I think. And if it was, he can make a clarification, saying something like: "History is full of atrocities against true Christians that have been committed by self-professed Christians thinking they are doing God's will".

Even that statement can not be directly concluded from John 16:2, but at least there is connection. Because John 16:2 doesn't say that "history will be full of atrocities" of the kind Jesus talks about. He is not talking about the volume at all, but about the nature of persecution that believers in Jesus Christ will suffer. The essence of John 16:2 is completely different that what poster wrote.

Anyway, to move on. If poster wants he can also make a clarification in other direction, like this: "History is full of atrocities that have been committed by people thinking they are doing will of their god or gods."

Until such clarification, to get back to what poster seems to have intended to say: if "history is full of atrocities that have been committed by people thinking they are doing will of Abraham's, Isaac's and Jacob' God" then it's a fact that "history is much much fuller of atrocities that have been committed by satanists, worshippers of false gods and atheists."

HenryM · Oct 21, 2017

RayJeena said:
I believe we are all extensions of Him, and can be inspired to do whatever is right and good under the circumstances without even having to believe first that He exists... In Him we live and move and have our being, no creed required beforehand.

That was what I was saying from the OP forward, more or less. But Bible reveals that it goes as far as this material life is concerned. Eternal life can only be gotten through belief in Jesus Christ.

comana · Oct 21, 2017

HenryM said:
Yes it would be sociopathic if this was actually universe without God. But since God exists, He is provider of inherent morality to all humans. Some just deny His existence and define theories to support their position.

While you believe morality can only be of god, I believe is a result of human empathy. I see no reason why the existence of human empathy requires god.
I did not define theories for the purpose of supporting my position. I defined theories as a result of asking questions and then compiling the facts and answers I discovered instead of just accepting on faith.
In the end all that truly matters for human existence is that we all try our best to do what will bring the greatest benefit and minimize harm. Wherever you or I believe that drive to do good comes from is the least important factor in the game of survival.

Rajni · Oct 21, 2017

HenryM said:
Statement was surely not a fact. And you are threading on some dangerous grounds, seems to me, by what can be perceived as defending murderous satanists, worshippers of false gods and atheists. (I'm talking about murderers from those three groups.)

Absolutely not. I wouldn't defend murderers from any ideological background, including Christians.

The no-true-Scotsman fallacy is just that, a fallacy. True believers are capable of committing atrocities as well, thinking they're doing God a service. Abortion clinic bombings, Crusades, Inquisitions, the list goes on... I'm in no position to judge that they weren't/aren't true believers. Plus, it would be against CF rules for me to do so.

HenryM · Oct 21, 2017

RayJeena said:
True believers are capable of committing atrocities as well, thinking they're doing God a service. Abortion clinic bombings, Crusades, Inquisitions, the list goes on... I'm in no position to judge that they weren't/aren't true believers.

You did define, as it seems, perpetrators of "abortion clinic bombings, crusades, inquisitions, etc" as true believers. We can at best say they are professed believers. I don't know if they really put their trust for salvation in Jesus Christ.

Nonetheless, John 16:2 is not about that cases.

Rajni · Oct 21, 2017

HenryM said:
You did define, as it seems, perpetrators of "abortion clinic bombings, crusades, inquisitions, etc" as true believers. We can at best say they are professed believers. I don't know if they really put their trust for salvation in Jesus Christ.

Nonetheless, John 16:2 is not about that cases.

Not those specifically, but it deals with the same general category of believing types.

expos4ever · Oct 21, 2017

HenryM said:
Atheism provides this kind of "morality": If something is good for my pleasure in this world, I accept it, if something is bad for my pleasure in this world, I try to block it.

Who said this? Please be specific.

expos4ever · Oct 21, 2017

comana said:
You are the one defining an atheist’s concept of morality in these terms. You have twisted the concept of social contract defining morals as a selfish utility.

Yes. No one has come remotely close to voicing such a view. Henry, please do not distort what others are saying.

Atheism is amoral

Senior Veteran

our world is happy and mundane

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dis Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯

Well-Known Member

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads