Ask an atheist!

[frenzy]

Those who lack intelligence can look to the law to guide behavior.

And people may disagree on morals. But it's not like Christians agree on everything, either.

Laws are often frivolous and corrupt. It seems dangerous for someone to base their whole moral structure on just that. Shouldn't we look to something else?

 

[Maxwell511]

Aha, now we are getting to the core! Thanks for answering, I really enjoy learning and debating. I'm sort of on a spiritual quest, as it were.

I guessed that from the seeker icon.

Good luck.

 

[frenzy]

I guessed that from the seeker icon.

Good luck.

Thank you. I always worry about asking questions and debating in threads like these because I don't want people to think I mean any harm. I really do like learning and harmless debating.

 

[karisma]

Laws are often frivolous and corrupt. It seems dangerous for someone to base their whole moral structure on just that. Shouldn't we look to something else?

Nope! If you stick by the maxim, "cause no harm" you'll be fine. Absolutes are what are dangerous.

 

[frenzy]

Nope! If you stick by the maxim, "cause no harm" you'll be fine. Absolutes are what are dangerous.

But even "cause no harm" is debatable. Is abortion causing harm? Is euthanasia causing harm? Is punishment causing harm? It's debatable. That's why it can't be a maxim.

 

[andross77]

Lots of good stuff to comment on, glad this thread "took off".

To the puppy question:

First thing first, atheism is not a morally-conscious worldview. It is a lack of belief in gods of any sort. It makes no moral claims and it offers no ethical guidelines. It is not a religion.

A man raised to have a strict moral code but not taught about any gods or religions is an atheist. A man raised to believe in a god but not taught about any moral code is a theist. A man who does not believe in god and straps bombs to dogs to kill people he doesn't like is still an atheist. A man who straps bombs to dogs and sends them into crowds of "infidels" to appease his god is still a theist. See where I'm going with this?

Personally, I adore dogs. I have dogs, I love my dogs, I've never even dreamed of kicking my dogs. I'd would flirt with the idea of kicking someone in the head if I found out they kicked my dogs. I imagine I would come to a better decision than assault, and press charges through our legal system instead.

But then again, I'm a hypocrite. Why? I eat chicken. I know exactly the terrible conditions in which chickens are kept, and I do something far worse than kick them--I allow them to be slaughtered and I eat them. It is my understanding that in some countries and cultures, dogs are eaten. I imagine they're kept in similarly crappy conditions as chickens in our country. Do I storm their borders with an army of bloodhounds and rottweilers to set them free? Well, no, because I respect our differences in cultures. I would submit that you (and most theists) do the same, because I've not heard of any Christian Animal Rescue groups going overseas to witness to dog-eaters because they eat dogs. I wouldn't be surprised, though, of such a group existing in our country that caters to abused dogs of our culture. Why? Because our culture values the rights of animals that we like around us. The Jews hate pigs and Hindus love cows, and the most of us can't relate to either cultural value. Why? Because it's simply not a value our culture.

We're all guilty of some level of moral relativism, which I imagine is the thing you're fishing for here. Unfortunately, this isn't as slippery of a slope as most theists would have it. Kicking (or eating) dogs cannot directly translate to kicking (or eating) human beings which can also not translate to kicking (or eating) leafy greens.

If you want to know what an atheist thinks about any given thing, you’ll have to ask that specific person about that specific question. There is no atheist creed, list of moral guidelines, or ethical codes. I do not feel like I’m personally adrift on a sea of moral indecision, though. I value the things I value because I’ve thought about them and can explain to you the precise whys and hows involved. And I am in no way afraid of admitting that I do not know.

I’ll risk sounding presumptuous for a moment. I’d submit to say that many theists think exactly the same way I do about these things. Their morality does not come from their creed alone, but is only one of the cultural forces at work that affects their moral decisions. This is an issue we can address later if you’d like, though.

There is a lot here and i can't comment on all of it. I agree with you that we are all hypocrites. Since we are human, we all will fail at one time or another and some more often than others.

I'm a Christian, and i sin ALL THE TIME. I commit adultery in my heart, sometimes i wish i could kill some people (committing murder in my heart), i covet material things like nice cars ALL THE TIME, etc, etc. These are all sins and all against Scripture and Jesus' "code of ethics". But my difference is that i have a standard i'm trying to live up to and when i inevitably fail to live up to it, Jesus is my advocate to the Father and his blood will cover my sins: an atheist (or any other non-christian for that matter) doesn't have that.

So, i like your story about your dogs, but that's not the point. The issue we are trying to get at is a moral code or guideline that can apply to ALL people. It makes no difference if you are compassionate towards your dogs if your neighbor is an atheist and he hates them and one late night decides to come over and shoot them. Then your compassion for your dogs counts for nothing and you have no reason to be angry about it.

What you Atheists are saying over and over is that "atheism is the absence of belief in god(s) and not a moral code" and that there are no "absolutes when it comes to morals". Don't you see how this is unlivable? If everyone followed your viewpoint, the world would fall apart. See not everyone is going to kill babies and shoot dogs but everyone will be following their emotions and "whatever they feel like" and not everyone feels like a "saint" all the time.

There's more to say but i need to comment on the other quotes.

Well there's also the mens rea so to speak. If the intent was to cause harm but fortunately none was caused, it would still be wrong. Conversely if unintended harm was caused and assuming no recklessness then it isn't really an immoral action.

Why do you enforce "mens rea" or on what grounds do you? If someone has the intent to harm and causes harm against you, how can you, as an atheist that says there are no moral absolutes, call it wrong?

Do you understand? Your claims are a blatant contradiction. Either there ARE moral absolutes or you have no basis on calling anything wrong.

I thought a christian was not to judge the actions of another just to recognise that we are apparently all sinners and in need of saving. A sort of preach the word but do not judge thing. I could be getting the theology wrong though, it has been a while since I was a christian.

You are right when you say Christians are not to judge (Matthew 7:1; Luke 6:37). But we are still supposed to point people towards the truth. I have been wrestling over this a lot lately b/c i truly believe we Christians need to point to Christ and the hope that lies within us and focus on that instead of pointing out the negative parts of other worldviews. But it's hard to "fight the devil using roses and honey".

No but you are mainly right in your post. It's just a VERY VERY hard line not to cross. On one hand, we should not judge b/c the same measure we use will be used against us and we all (me especially) are terrible, terrible sinners. And i need God to be as merciful and gracious as possible with me. But on the other hand we are not just talking about a difference in fly-fishing technique or arguing who to vote for in the next presidential election. We are debating something that has ETERNAL consequences and determines whether our never-dieing souls end up in agony and pain in hell FOREVER or in ecstasy, understanding and worship in heaven FOREVER.

Hard line to figure out, and obviously i haven't yet. And obviously i'm still a very immature believer since i got caught up in a multi-page argument with Jedi over nothing. I can honestly say that guy sickens me but that is not the Christ-like attitude. I should have looked past all his comments and loved him like Christ has loved me. So i failed that test but i pray that i will pass future tests. Sometimes i want to hide so i don't fail anymore, but you can't do that as a Christian. You must use the "talents" God has given you and spread the Gospel the best way you know how.

Possibly the best way for you to understand an atheist view on this is a simple mental exercise:

Try to think of reasons that it is wrong to kill without any reference to God.

I cannot imagine a person that would not be able to do this. After this try it with adultery, stealing etc.

We may be prone to selfishness as part of our nature but we are also prone (more so in my opinion of people) to empathy and sympathy.

Btw your question is slightly loaded, most moral judgements are situational. Moral rules are not set in stone, an action that may be "right" in one circumstance may not be wrong in another. It is not wrong to lie to save someone's life for example, in fact it would be wrong not to do so.

Again, refer to one of my previous paragraphs. I agree that we can think of reasons not to kill a person besides "b/c God said so": Police, jail, mental anguish of ending someone's life, the pain you cause those around you, etc.

But the point we are trying to get across is that if someone DOESN'T figure out those reasons in time and DOES kill a person, an atheist has NO GROUNDS to say it was wrong b/c, as stated by you guys many times, "there are no moral absolutes". So what's right for one person is wrong for another and what's wrong for one person is right for another.

You all try to extract atheism from morality but a valid worldview MUST include a moral code. If it doesn't, it's just an irrelevant signpost you are holding up.

Is God the only thing that keeps you from killing babies on sight and running old people down in your car?

That is a terrifying thing. People that think this are a danger to all the world.

again, read my response directly above. God is not the only thing but he is what makes morals absolute. An atheist has no claim to moral absolutes so if someone kills their baby or runs down their grandpa with a car, they have no right to be outraged. Of course you will disagree with that last statement, b/c you naturally know its wrong, BUT WHY? Who put that natural inclination there? Was it God or was it nature or society? If it is just nature and a bunch of "biological processes" than you can't claim that your "biological processes" are better than the murderers "biological processes".

I no more need religion to tell me that it is wrong to cause harm than I need one to tell me that the grass is green.

I can see what suffering is, I can feel it myself and I can sympathize with people that are suffering.

Do you think that atheists don't consider others to be people like themselves? Or do you only act "good" because a religion told you to and not because you think that others have feelings and a diginity that is just as deserving as yours?

Again, see above

Whether it causes harm isn't the end-all be-all. Again, there are no moral absolutes. That's what we have intelligence for.

This is the quote i was looking for and is a standard atheist response and pulls out the rug from all their moral declarations. Since Karisma has just told us that "there are no moral absolutes" she would HAVE to agree that killing her mom or eating a baby or kicking a puppy would be fine. It makes no difference. She CANNOT say something is wrong if there are no moral absolutes.

Nope! If you stick by the maxim, "cause no harm" you'll be fine. Absolutes are what are dangerous.

You guys are just using a circular, non-rational argument: Don't cause harm, but there are no moral absolutes.

You can not tell me to not cause anyone harm, if there are no moral absolutes. I have no obligation to listen to you and you have no grounds to enforce what you said, "don't harm anyone".

 

[Yekcidmij]

EDIT: And I've already tried out Christianity and I know now that it is not the right belief system for me. If you want specific details on why that is, then feel free to PM me.

Either Christianity is true or it's not. If you've "tried it" like you would try on new clothes and just don't like it, that's fine, but that doesn't make it false.

 

[Yekcidmij]

You guys are just using a circular, non-rational argument: Don't cause harm, but there are no moral absolutes.

You can not tell me to not cause anyone harm, if there are no moral absolutes. I have no obligation to listen to you and you have no grounds to enforce what you said, "don't harm anyone".

It degrades to a form of arbitrariness. "There are no moral absolutes, but my morals say don't football the puppy so it's wrong to football the puppy", well who's going to tell me it's wrong?

I'm going to change the rules of the game now and say it's immoral for everyone to say that morality is relative. Now whoever thinks morality is relative cannot tell me I'm wrong. And since my morals are correct for me then I just successfully applied them to all of humanity because nobody can tell me it's wrong to do so. Oh, and since I'm busy creating moral laws....no kicking puppies!!!

 

[andross77]

It degrades to a form of arbitrariness. "There are no moral absolutes, but my morals say don't football the puppy so it's wrong to football the puppy", well who's going to tell me it's wrong?

I'm going to change the rules of the game now and say it's immoral for everyone to say that morality is relative. Now whoever thinks morality is relative cannot tell me I'm wrong. And since my morals are correct for me then I just successfully applied them to all of humanity because nobody can tell me it's wrong to do so. Oh, and since I'm busy creating moral laws....no kicking puppies!!!

agreed.

my point in writing these posts is not to make people feel stupid or say i'm better than you. We are all sinners. I want to help people go from falsehood to the Truth. One way i think i can do that with intellectuals is by pointing out rational and logical contradictions in their worldviews.

i hope they understand this.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Absolutes are what are dangerous.

Haha, by your definition, that statement is dangerous since it is an absolute truth statement.

 

[karisma]

But even "cause no harm" is debatable. Is abortion causing harm? Is euthanasia causing harm? Is punishment causing harm? It's debatable. That's why it can't be a maxim.

That's the point! These issues don't have easy or clear cut issues! That's why we have to weigh the merits of each. It's not black and white.

 

[karisma]

This is the quote i was looking for and is a standard atheist response and pulls out the rug from all their moral declarations. Since Karisma has just told us that "there are no moral absolutes" she would HAVE to agree that killing her mom or eating a baby or kicking a puppy would be fine. It makes no difference. She CANNOT say something is wrong if there are no moral absolutes.

Are you joking? That's the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever heard!

This is my mantra: "Cause no harm." It's so simple even a toddler can get it. But even that is not an absolute. What if someone is coming at me with a knife threatening to kill me? What if someone breaks in my place? Am I going to "harm them?" You bet! They intruding on my property, violating my rights as a human.

I think you need to demonstrate how morals must be absolutes to be worthwhile.

You can not tell me to not cause anyone harm, if there are no moral absolutes. I have no obligation to listen to you and you have no grounds to enforce what you said, "don't harm anyone".

See above.

If the basis for morality rests with a single entity, what makes that entity accountable? What makes God moral?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Are you joking? That's the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever heard!

This is my mantra: "Cause no harm." It's so simple even a toddler can get it. But even that is not an absolute. What if someone is coming at me with a knife threatening to kill me? What if someone breaks in my place? Am I going to "harm them?" You bet! They intruding on my property, violating my rights as a human.

So, you violate your own "mantra"? That's not very consistent. Why should a toddler follow your mantra?

If the basis for morality rests with a single entity, what makes that entity accountable? What makes God moral?

Now you are tracking near the right scent! This delima goes back to Greek philosophers. Are things moral because God commands them or does God command things because they are moral? If it's the first case then God's moral commands seem arbitrary, like He just decided at random what He would command and then it would be possible for Him to violate those commands since he would be "above" or "beyond" them. If it's the second case, then there is something more ultimate than God, namely morals.

Great question and this is the trail your question would eventually lead to. The delima presented though, is a false delima. There is another option and it will also answer your question. The answer is God is Moral and God's thoughts are perfectly logical, so God doesn't contradict His own nature or another way to put it is He is "bound" by His own nature. It's not that God has a standard of morality beyond himself or that his moral commands are arbitrary. His moral commands are perfectly consistent with His good nature because He is Perfect, and He is perfectly Moral and Logical. He is by nature, Love, Mercy, Grace, Patient, etc... and the Ultimate "Good".

The bible would affirm that God is Good by His very nature and Character:

Mark 10:17 Now as Jesus was starting out on his way, someone ran up to him, fell on his knees, and said, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
10:18 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

and

1 John 4:15 If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God resides in him and he in God. And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has in us. God is love, and the one who resides in love resides in God, and God resides in him.

 

[andross77]

So, you violate your own "mantra"? That's not very consistent. Why should a toddler follow your mantra?




Now you are tracking near the right scent! This delima goes back to Greek philosophers. Are things moral because God commands them or does God command things because they are moral? If it's the first case then God's moral commands seem arbitrary, like He just decided at random what He would command and then it would be possible for Him to violate those commands since he would be "above" or "beyond" them. If it's the second case, then there is something more ultimate than God, namely morals.

Great question and this is the trail your question would eventually lead to. The delima presented though, is a false delima. There is another option and it will also answer your question. The answer is God is Moral and God's thoughts are perfectly logical, so God doesn't contradict His own nature or another way to put it is He is "bound" by His own nature. It's not that God has a standard of morality beyond himself or that his moral commands are arbitrary. His moral commands are perfectly consistent with His good nature because He is Perfect, and He is perfectly Moral and Logical. He is by nature, Love, Mercy, Grace, Patient, etc... and the Ultimate "Good".

The bible would affirm that God is Good by His very nature and Character:

Mark 10:17 Now as Jesus was starting out on his way, someone ran up to him, fell on his knees, and said, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
10:18 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

and

1 John 4:15 If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God resides in him and he in God. And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has in us. God is love, and the one who resides in love resides in God, and God resides in him.

Damn good explanation! One more swear for effect...damn.

my apologies to anyone i offended.

Blessings.

 

[andross77]

Are you joking? That's the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever heard!

This is my mantra: "Cause no harm." It's so simple even a toddler can get it. But even that is not an absolute. What if someone is coming at me with a knife threatening to kill me? What if someone breaks in my place? Am I going to "harm them?" You bet! They intruding on my property, violating my rights as a human.

I think you need to demonstrate how morals must be absolutes to be worthwhile.




See above.

If the basis for morality rests with a single entity, what makes that entity accountable? What makes God moral?

You are sidestepping the main discussion. YOU said there are NO MORAL ABSOLUTES.

How then can you say murdering or cannibalism is "ridiculous". If someone decides it is right for them how do YOU tell them it is wrong?

Please answer that question directly. Thanks.

 

[karisma]

So, you violate your own "mantra"? That's not very consistent. Why should a toddler follow your mantra?

It's not absolute. Depending on the situation, it might be right to cause harm.

Now you are tracking near the right scent! This delima goes back to Greek philosophers. Are things moral because God commands them or does God command things because they are moral? If it's the first case then God's moral commands seem arbitrary, like He just decided at random what He would command and then it would be possible for Him to violate those commands since he would be "above" or "beyond" them. If it's the second case, then there is something more ultimate than God, namely morals.

Great question and this is the trail your question would eventually lead to. The delima presented though, is a false delima. There is another option and it will also answer your question. The answer is God is Moral and God's thoughts are perfectly logical, so God doesn't contradict His own nature or another way to put it is He is "bound" by His own nature. It's not that God has a standard of morality beyond himself or that his moral commands are arbitrary. His moral commands are perfectly consistent with His good nature because He is Perfect, and He is perfectly Moral and Logical. He is by nature, Love, Mercy, Grace, Patient, etc... and the Ultimate "Good".

How do you know God is good?
The Bible.
Who wrote the Bible?
God.
See the circular logic?? What if god is lying?

 

[karisma]

You are sidestepping the main discussion. YOU said there are NO MORAL ABSOLUTES.

How then can you say murdering or cannibalism is "ridiculous". If someone decides it is right for them how do YOU tell them it is wrong?

Please answer that question directly. Thanks.

It is socially and culturally unacceptable to murder an innocent person.

But even the Bible doesn't make the claim that murdering is an absolute wrong. Because even though God says 'thou shalt not kill' he follows that up by ordering them to kill! That is moral relativism, not absolutism.

 

[karisma]

I would love to continue this debate but real life is calling. I'll check back later.

 

[Yekcidmij]

How do you know God is good?
The Bible.
Who wrote the Bible?
God.
See the circular logic?? What if god is lying?

First of all, don't assume that I'm reasoning in a circle in this case. (And don't be surprised that I can show how you reason in a circle every day). I obviously cannot live without the laws of logic (try living without them for 5 minutes) and I intuitively know that there is a difference between good and bad and a difference between moral and immoral. I know that footballing a puppy for fun is not good or moral. So, I ask myself where do the laws of logic come from? Where does my standard of good or morality come from? Those seem "built" into me somehow. And it also seems that they are "built" into everyone else. It seems you and most people agree with me that footballing puppies is sick and anyone who thinks otherwise is somehow defected. So this moral sense is not relying on just me, and morals indeed seem to be "transcendent" of us from what I can tell. So I try to figure out where they came from. The only answer I have been able to come up with that is consistent is that there is an Ultimate Source for those things that occur naturally in me and everyone else (I can go into how I came up with this, but it may be difficult to follow and understand). Then I ask myself why I find that I and everyone I meet seem to violate the standard of morality and good that I find I intuitively know. It seems there is a standard, and I cannot possibly meet the standard. And surprisingly enough, I find what seems to be a good answer in the bible. It confirms what I thought, that there is an Ultimate Source for goodness, morality, and logic and it also explains why I violate that standard of goodness and how I can be "redeemed" for not being moral or good and how I can be restored from my shortcomings. The bible seems to confirm most of what I naturally and intuitively knew already.

 

[karisma]

First of all, don't assume that I'm reasoning in a circle in this case. (And don't be surprised that I can show how you reason in a circle every day). I obviously cannot live without the laws of logic (try living without them for 5 minutes) and I intuitively know that there is a difference between good and bad and a difference between moral and immoral. I know that footballing a puppy for fun is not good or moral. So, I ask myself where do the laws of logic come from? Where does my standard of good or morality come from? Those seem "built" into me somehow. And it also seems that they are "built" into everyone else. It seems you and most people agree with me that footballing puppies is sick and anyone who thinks otherwise is somehow defected. So this moral sense is not relying on just me, and morals indeed seem to be "transcendent" of us from what I can tell. So I try to figure out where they came from. The only answer I have been able to come up with that is consistent is that there is an Ultimate Source for those things that occur naturally in me and everyone else (I can go into how I came up with this, but it may be difficult to follow and understand). Then I ask myself why I find that I and everyone I meet seem to violate the standard of morality and good that I find I intuitively know. It seems there is a standard, and I cannot possibly meet the standard. And surprisingly enough, I find what seems to be a good answer in the bible. It confirms what I thought, that there is an Ultimate Source for goodness, morality, and logic and it also explains why I violate that standard of goodness and how I can be "redeemed" for not being moral or good and how I can be restored from my shortcomings. The bible seems to confirm most of what I naturally and intuitively knew already.

It is circular reasoning. Assuming God exists (which we have no objective evidence of) he could be “good”, or maybe only partly “good”/partly “bad,” or even all “bad.” He is the only one saying he is good. If he was lying, we would have no way of knowing. A God that was only partly good or even all bad would explain “the problem of evil” as well.

You are answering my question in a way to lead us to your personal beliefs. You also already had the answer to your personal beliefs before you even started asking questions. You were probably raised a Christian, or if not, at least knew of Christianity and the basic beliefs that there is a God who is good, so it’s not objective to claim that you found the Bible and it supported your beliefs, because you already knew that it was there.

There is no reason to assume that that inherent feeling of ‘wrongness’ comes from an external source, especially a supernatural source that has no evidence to support it. There is also no reason to assume that that feeling is “built” into us, which implies a creator. That’s begging the question. The simplest answer is usually the best (law of parsimony), and it seems most logical to believe it comes from nothing more than a sense of empathy. Human beings live in a natural world, and have the same basic needs and desires for food, warmth, and acceptance. The average person does not wish to have harm upon her because it is painful (physically or emotionally). She can empathize with a puppy who is getting kicked because she can imagine how painful that must be, and not wish that feeling to be upon her or anyone else. Interestingly enough, murderers are always described as showing a lack of empathy for their victims. So it seems that this sense of empathy is what keeps people from punting puppies around the backyard. Those who lack it are the ones who kill people and commit other serious crimes.