Ask an Atheist anything!

[Mling]

You're speculating. We aren't told what would make Lot righteous, and I agree it doesn't make sense. I have no idea if the Talmud might have any insight here; I've never spoken with a Rabbi about this. None of that means that his indecent proposal was a righteous act! And we can see it demonstrated that it was not, because Holy Angels put a stop to it. Simple enough?

But it was. The angels made it unnecessary, but they didn't do it by telling him not to. They did it by rendering the offer unnecessary by stopping the crowd. It is only unclear why he was righteous because we live in a different time with a different culture, a different attitude toward women and a different attitude toward visitors. In that time period and culture, people were expected to offer shelter to visitors and, much more importantly, to offer them protection if they are being pursued. Once a person is in your house, you owe them everything they might need. That's what the line in Psalms, "you prepare a table for me in the presence of my enemies," refers to-- it is a reference to the code of hospitality requiring a host to protect his guest from his attackers.

Sodom's fallenness is evident because, in a culture where hospitality is law, and you're supposed to give your guests your life, if need be, they attack guests in their town. Lot is the one who gets it right. He invites the guests home and, when they are being pursued, he protects them.

And he is willing to sacrifice his own dignity and significantly burden himself in order to protect them-- by offering his daughters to be defiled and made unmarriageble, so that he will have to take care of them for the rest of their lives.

That is his righteousness. His willingness to allow his daughters to be gang-raped is how the Bible demonstrates that he is righteous. Because it is an extreme sacrifice of his own dignity and future wealth and quality of life, in order to do right by his guests.

 

[juvenissun]

There is no "according to atheism".

So, is there an idea called atheism?
If yes, how would you quote it, if not using "according to"?

 

[Tinker Grey]

There is no "idea called atheism". Atheism is the state of being unconvinced of any gods. Period.

Atheism doesn't make a positive statement about anything. It merely makes the negative statement that gods and evidence for them is unconvincing.

Atheism makes no statements about souls, ghosts (as noted elsewhere), even spirits or morals. An atheist draws on other things to decide these things.

quatona is an atheist that thinks that morality is subjective. Eudaimonist is an atheist that thinks that morality is objective. Atheism doesn't dictate that one is right and the other is wrong.

There is no "according to atheism."

 

[juvenissun]

So why, then, does the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have the righteous Lot turn over his virginal daughters to the lustful mob to protect his guests?


There's no overarching body called 'Atheism', just as there's no overarching body for the hobby called 'not-stamp-collecting' or 'not-train-watching'. Some atheists may well contend that it may be justified - perhaps in the situation where turning two girls over to get raped will prevent 1000 girls from getting raped. It's an impossibly difficult situation, but one could argue that, from a utilitarian point of view, when forced to choose between two and 1000 girls getting raped, the former is less evil than the latter, and could, in that view, be justified.

And I daresay the sensible Christian would agree.

Lot knows the two guests are angelic. And Lot himself is sinful.

Sinful act can not be quantified. 100 sins and one sin are the same. When one resists sin, one can not evaluate and predict the consequence and choose a possible "lesser" sin. This is very different from atheism.

Atheism is an idea of no god (and no ghost). Otherwise, anything goes. Is it not correct?

 

[juvenissun]

There is no "idea called atheism". Atheism is the state of being unconvinced of any gods. Period.

Atheism doesn't make a positive statement about anything. It merely makes the negative statement that gods and evidence for them is unconvincing.

Atheism makes no statements about souls, ghosts (as noted elsewhere), even spirits or morals. An atheist draws on other things to decide these things.

quatona is an atheist that thinks that morality is subjective. Eudaimonist is an atheist that thinks that morality is objective. Atheism doesn't dictate that one is right and the other is wrong.

There is no "according to atheism."

So atheism is "an idea" of no god. (It is more than just "unconvinced. It is a denial).
So according to atheism, anything goes.

Am I right now?

 

[Tinker Grey]

No.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Atheism is an idea of no god (and no ghost). Otherwise, anything goes. Is it not correct?

If you meant that atheism is only a statement about god, and says nothing about anything else then yes you are correct. (But it also says nothing about ghosts, just god.)

The following post is assuming that you did not mean that, but were making a case for the immorality of atheism. (But you can ignore the whole thing if you meant the former.)

So atheism is "an idea" of no god. (It is more than just "unconvinced. It is a denial).
So according to atheism, anything goes.

Am I right now?

You seem to have some trouble on this issue, I think that is understandable if you consider god as the sole source of all morality.

Perhaps it would help to take this in smaller steps.
Consider a Deist, they believe god made the universe and then stopped interacting.
Would you say that "according to deism" anything go's?

The problem here is that you are asking for moral advice from ideas which make no moral claims.
comparing beliefs which are not meant to give moral advice with one that is meant to give moral advice.

.Deism
.Ufo's
.chocolate superior taste
.gravity
.atheism

are all examples of things which hold no statements about morality.
The following are examples of things which make statements on morality

. islam
. budists
. humanism
. the silver/golden/platinum rule
. "what if everybody did that?"

 

[quatona]

So according to atheism, anything goes.

Yeah, sort of like according to vegetarianism anything (but eating meat) goes.
And like according to theism anything (but the absence of a god) goes.

 

[quatona]

.Deism
.Ufo's
.chocolate superior taste
.gravity
.atheism

are all examples of things which hold no statements about morality.

Theism belongs in that list, too, btw.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Theism belongs in that list, too, btw.

True, that is a point worth making. I just picked some at random.

 

[juvenissun]

Yeah, sort of like according to vegetarianism anything (but eating meat) goes.
And like according to theism anything (but the absence of a god) goes.

Listen to yourself. It does not make sense.

If one has a god in his mind, then it is NOT anything goes. Instead, according to that god, many many things are not allowed go. That is the basic difference between a theist and an atheist.

 

[juvenissun]

No.

?

 

[juvenissun]

If you meant that atheism is only a statement about god, and says nothing about anything else then yes you are correct. (But it also says nothing about ghosts, just god.)

The following post is assuming that you did not mean that, but were making a case for the immorality of atheism. (But you can ignore the whole thing if you meant the former.)


You seem to have some trouble on this issue, I think that is understandable if you consider god as the sole source of all morality.

Perhaps it would help to take this in smaller steps.
Consider a Deist, they believe god made the universe and then stopped interacting.
Would you say that "according to deism" anything go's?

The problem here is that you are asking for moral advice from ideas which make no moral claims.
comparing beliefs which are not meant to give moral advice with one that is meant to give moral advice.

.Deism
.Ufo's
.chocolate superior taste
.gravity
.atheism

are all examples of things which hold no statements about morality.
The following are examples of things which make statements on morality

. islam
. budists
. humanism
. the silver/golden/platinum rule
. "what if everybody did that?"

Morality is a sense of right and wrong.
Without a standard, there is no right and no wrong.
The only standard which does not change is an unchanging God.

All your examples (except the Buddhism and the Islam) allow many many arguments and have no standard. So, you do not find morality in them.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Morality is a sense of right and wrong.

More or less.

Without a standard, there is no right and no wrong.

The only standard which does not change is an unchanging God.

The Golden Rule doesn't change either. And even if God is an unchanging standard of morality, that doesn't help us: from that fact alone, we cannot deduce any moral truth. Those theists who have, have come up with an plethora of conflicting 'objective moral truths', so that's no help whatsoever.

All your examples (except the Buddhism and the Islam) allow many many arguments and have no standard. So, you do not find morality in them.

Nor do you in Christianity. Guess we're back to square one.

Personally, "Don't cause harm" is a pretty good place to start, don't you think? "Don't infringe on the free will of another person" is broad enough to prohibit pain and suffering (yet permits masochism for those who desire it), and distinguishes between theft and gift, rape and consensual sex, and it allows for the discussion of abortion and animal rights - is an unborn foetus a 'person' with a will that can be infringed upon? Are animals wilful beings who can be infringed upon? - while all at the same time keeping the core axiom, "Don't infringe on free will", constant.

Works well for me.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Morality is a sense of right and wrong.
Without a standard, there is no right and no wrong.
The only standard which does not change is an unchanging God.

All your examples (except the Buddhism and the Islam) allow many many arguments and have no standard. So, you do not find morality in them.

So If I were to say that my god told me humanism is the way to go. Then humanism would suddenly have a unchanging standard?

 

[juvenissun]

So If I were to say that my god told me humanism is the way to go. Then humanism would suddenly have a unchanging standard?

That is correct.

Also, that will make you a theist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The only standard which does not change is an unchanging God.

Or something about reality that does not change within one's lifespan.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

More or less.




The Golden Rule doesn't change either. And even if God is an unchanging standard of morality, that doesn't help us: from that fact alone, we cannot deduce any moral truth. Those theists who have, have come up with an plethora of conflicting 'objective moral truths', so that's no help whatsoever.


Nor do you in Christianity. Guess we're back to square one.

Personally, "Don't cause harm" is a pretty good place to start, don't you think? "Don't infringe on the free will of another person" is broad enough to prohibit pain and suffering (yet permits masochism for those who desire it), and distinguishes between theft and gift, rape and consensual sex, and it allows for the discussion of abortion and animal rights - is an unborn foetus a 'person' with a will that can be infringed upon? Are animals wilful beings who can be infringed upon? - while all at the same time keeping the core axiom, "Don't infringe on free will", constant.

Works well for me.

The situation which is harmful to one may be a situation of holiness or benefit to another one. Again, there is no standard for that. The best you can say is: this works for me. You can not impose any of your value to anyone else. Humanistic way takes the norm of everything among a population as a standard (such as the idea of democracy). However, that is not a standard to any individual who has his own idea.

For theist, there is something called "God says ...". Even some of the commandments may still be subjected to interpretation, but the range of variation is much much restricted and there are guidelines for argument. That serves as standards of everything to a theist.

Atheism means there is not a single authority from anyone or anything. That means anything goes. No right or wrong and everything is gray.

 

[juvenissun]

Or something about reality that does not change within one's lifespan.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Mostly, it belongs to math, logic and a few scientific principles. A robot can live with that. But not a human.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Mostly, it belongs to math, logic and a few scientific principles. A robot can live with that. But not a human.

No, there is something else. The nature of human well-being.

Granted, in evolutionary timescales perhaps even that would change, but it wouldn't really matter to us in our lifetimes.


eudaimonia,

Mark