Atheists: Why don't you steal, rape, pillage, etc?

[FullEnglishBrekkie]

My point is Evolution. Animals kill other animals for territory, rape their females. The strong crush the weak, which helps the species improve.

The weird thing about Atheists is they always use religious arguments ("don't hurt the weak", "I'm a good person", etc.) instead of logical arguments like evolution, euthanizing the weak/burdens on society, etc.

Another thing is they say they are "good" people often, and isn't good a construct of religion? If you are Atheist then there is no "good" or "evil". i.e. Atheists saying Hitler is an "evil monster" make no sense. Or do you atheists not believe in Evolution? Are you against euthanizing the elderly or handicapped?

What logical arguments can you have for not stealing a car if you know you can get away with it? Or robbing a bank? Or kidnapping the women you want who rejects you?

Not a direct response to the original post, and I have not read all posts in the thread, but:

Is it the case, then, that those who believe in God behave well because they are told to, while atheists behave equally as well because they know themselves that it is the right thing to do?

 

[muichimotsu]

Not a direct response to the original post, and I have not read all posts in the thread, but:

Is it the case, then, that those who believe in God behave well because they are told to, while atheists behave equally as well because they know themselves that it is the right thing to do?

Pretty much the Euthypro dilemma: "is it good and just because God wills it or does God will it because it is good and just?"

 

[FullEnglishBrekkie]

Pretty much the Euthypro dilemma: "is it good and just because God wills it or does God will it because it is good and just?"

I have a notion that there is a third prong to that dilemma: is it good irrespective and independently of God's will?

 

[muichimotsu]

I have a notion that there is a third prong to that dilemma: is it good irrespective and independently of God's will?

That's sort of the essence of what is asked: is it rational to regard morality based on the commands of a deity or based on a rational consideration of morality in human scope?

The two positions focused on are that of a rational standard apart from divine revelation and that which regards God's commands as binding on all even if they don't acknowledge God to begin with. Resolving the issue has various solutions from each side.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have a notion that there is a third prong to that dilemma: is it good irrespective and independently of God's will?

That is the implication of "does God will it because it is good and just?"


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FullEnglishBrekkie]

That's sort of the essence of what is asked: is it rational to regard morality based on the commands of a deity or based on a rational consideration of morality in human scope?

The two positions focused on are that of a rational standard apart from divine revelation and that which regards God's commands as binding on all even if they don't acknowledge God to begin with. Resolving the issue has various solutions from each side.

Quite so, and thank you for clarifying. I just thought it made the prongs of the dilemma clearer if one added a third that had no reference to God at all, just to modernise it a bit.

 

[FullEnglishBrekkie]

My point is Evolution. Animals kill other animals for territory, rape their females. The strong crush the weak, which helps the species improve.

The weird thing about Atheists is they always use religious arguments ("don't hurt the weak", "I'm a good person", etc.) instead of logical arguments like evolution, euthanizing the weak/burdens on society, etc.

Another thing is they say they are "good" people often, and isn't good a construct of religion? If you are Atheist then there is no "good" or "evil". i.e. Atheists saying Hitler is an "evil monster" make no sense. Or do you atheists not believe in Evolution? Are you against euthanizing the elderly or handicapped?

What logical arguments can you have for not stealing a car if you know you can get away with it? Or robbing a bank? Or kidnapping the women you want who rejects you?

Any road up, to address the OP: I don't steal, rape, pillage, etc because I don't want to risk the wrath of my victims being visited upon me or my family, I don't want my freedom taken away and I don't want to support the idea that those things are acceptable in a society that I inhabit. If I want transgressors to be punished for those acts, to take them out of my society and to deter others, then it behoves me not to be a transgressor myself.

Also: I have nowhere to store the stolen goods and I don't know any fences, I probably no longer have the urge or wherewithal to rape and there's no major conflict around here for me to join in with so that I can pillage.

Further also: I just couldn't be bothered.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I hate it when people find out I'm an atheist and say, "But you're such a nice guy!" Yeah, what were you expecting me to be?

 

[Ken-1122]

I hate it when people find out I'm an atheist and say, "But you're such a nice guy!" Yeah, what were you expecting me to be?

That reminds me of an experience I had when a woman who was black/african american found out I was atheist. Her reply was "you are such a good person; as far as I am concerned, you are more of a Christian than many of these people around here claiming to be" It was obvious she meant it as a compliment. My reply to her was; suppose a person upon finding out you were black said you were such a desent person and as far as they are concerned, you are more of a white person than many of these people claiming to be?
When I explained it to her that way she realize how bigoted her words were.

Ken

 

[muichimotsu]

Quite so, and thank you for clarifying. I just thought it made the prongs of the dilemma clearer if one added a third that had no reference to God at all, just to modernise it a bit.

A third prong could make the argument that morality is independent of God because God isn't necessary for morality to be binding.

 

[Chany]

That's what the prong "God commands x because it is good" is. The morality is true, regardless of whether God commands it or not. The command of god is ultimately irrelevant.

 

[FullEnglishBrekkie]

That's what the prong "God commands x because it is good" is. The morality is true, regardless of whether God commands it or not. The command of god is ultimately irrelevant.

You know that, and I know that......... I think it just behoves us to be explicit about separating God from good human acts now and then.

 

[Chany]

You know that, and I know that......... I think it just behoves us to be explicit about separating God from good human acts now and then.

The reason the divide remains is that it gets to the core of Natural Law Theory versus Divine Command Theory, which is what fuels the debate about the concept of goodness and its relation to God. Divine Command Theory, in its most basic form, is repulsive and does not align to any normal concept of good. It makes good ultimately arbitrary. Natural Law Theory is a better option, but it creates a problem for the theist; it puts something above God, making God lower than something. And because the god of classical theism is technically the "maximally great being" (an idea I have issues with alone, but I digress), it would mean the good of classical theism is not true. There is a way some theists try to get around the issue, but I am not really sure it succeeds, especially when it comes to the existence of good outside God.

 

[derGroßmütige]

Wow, I had to deal with business (I run a company) and politics (got my bills passed! yay!) but I must say I am surprised to come back and find like 200 new posts. Sorry to everyone that I don't have the time to read them all and engage you on a one-by-one basis as I would like to.

My whole point with this is there is no Earthly logic in self-denial if you want something and can get away with taking it, whether it is a woman you want, a car you want, or money you want.

You can as FullEnglishBrekkie said of himself, say that you are afraid of the consequences, but this again illogically ignores my question because I said in a scenario in which you can get away with it. Like how many smash stores and take TVs during a riot. They are being quite logical in the Atheist sense that it is 99% likely they will get away with it and they don't have much to lose.

It is only when you are religious, and believe that you will be punished in the afterlife that it can become logical for you to deny the short-term self-interest of this world in favor of the long-term (eternal) self-interest in the next.

If you can just admit you don't resist self-interest out of logical reasons, but out of illogical emotional reasons then I won't have any problem with that. The problem is it seems Atheists are incapable of saying that because they think they pride themselves on being "smarter" and more "logical" than believers (to think they know FOR SURE what we believe in, does not exist).

 

[Davian]

Wow, I had to deal with business (I run a company) and politics (got my bills passed! yay!) but I must say I am surprised to come back and find like 200 new posts. Sorry to everyone that I don't have the time to read them all and engage you on a one-by-one basis as I would like to.

My whole point with this is there is no Earthly logic in self-denial if you want something and can get away with taking it, whether it is a woman you want, a car you want, or money you want.

You can as FullEnglishBrekkie said of himself, say that you are afraid of the consequences, but this again illogically ignores my question because I said in a scenario in which you can get away with it. Like how many smash stores and take TVs during a riot. They are being quite logical in the Atheist sense that it is 99% likely they will get away with it and they don't have much to lose.

It is only when you are religious, and believe that you will be punished in the afterlife that it can become logical for you to deny the short-term self-interest of this world in favor of the long-term (eternal) self-interest in the next.
...

According to what you believe, is there any action that might preclude you from entering your hypothetical "Heaven", if you believe such a place exists?

 

[muichimotsu]

My whole point with this is there is no Earthly logic in self-denial if you want something and can get away with taking it, whether it is a woman you want, a car you want, or money you want.

You can as FullEnglishBrekkie said of himself, say that you are afraid of the consequences, but this again illogically ignores my question because I said in a scenario in which you can get away with it. Like how many smash stores and take TVs during a riot. They are being quite logical in the Atheist sense that it is 99% likely they will get away with it and they don't have much to lose.

It is only when you are religious, and believe that you will be punished in the afterlife that it can become logical for you to deny the short-term self-interest of this world in favor of the long-term (eternal) self-interest in the next.

If you can just admit you don't resist self-interest out of logical reasons, but out of illogical emotional reasons then I won't have any problem with that. The problem is it seems Atheists are incapable of saying that because they think they pride themselves on being "smarter" and more "logical" than believers (to think they know FOR SURE what we believe in, does not exist).

It's not purely about the consequences, but the notion that it's too easy, there's no merit in it. If I get money because I work hard and deserve it, that feels more rewarding, logically speaking, than if I could get a million dollars and was guaranteed that no one would find out. There are some times when fortune smiles on you, like an inheritance, or winning the lottery, or being rewarded for some contribution to a cause, etc. But earning your money is hardly antithetical to a nontheist, even if they believe in biological evolution.

The major reason for this is that we don't base morality on nature: that's the appeal to nature fallacy, as well as the naturalistic fallacy, saying we should derive an ought from an is. Ducks rape their mates, dolphins rape their mates. We don't imitate lower animals as a matter of course, we're better than that.

Don't have much to lose? You're losing your integrity when you're acting purely on impulse and desire. You're acting no better than an animal with a brain half your size.

I don't act out of self interest in some egocentric way because it doesn't benefit me or others in a long term consideration. At most, I can take a little office supplies from the office, but I don't make a habit of it. Riots aren't the best example, because people aren't thinking rationally to begin with in those situations.

And I can value life much more than a believer in an afterlife because I see that we only have one chance and we shouldn't waste it on frivolity.

I don't consider myself more rational purely because of my atheism, or even necessarily more rational as a whole: I'm not beyond being more intuitive than sensory, if we're going with Myers Briggs. And I don't consider myself some genius either, so let's make that clear.

 

[Chany]

Wow, I had to deal with business (I run a company) and politics (got my bills passed! yay!) but I must say I am surprised to come back and find like 200 new posts. Sorry to everyone that I don't have the time to read them all and engage you on a one-by-one basis as I would like to.

My whole point with this is there is no Earthly logic in self-denial if you want something and can get away with taking it, whether it is a woman you want, a car you want, or money you want.

You can as FullEnglishBrekkie said of himself, say that you are afraid of the consequences, but this again illogically ignores my question because I said in a scenario in which you can get away with it. Like how many smash stores and take TVs during a riot. They are being quite logical in the Atheist sense that it is 99% likely they will get away with it and they don't have much to lose.

It is only when you are religious, and believe that you will be punished in the afterlife that it can become logical for you to deny the short-term self-interest of this world in favor of the long-term (eternal) self-interest in the next.

If you can just admit you don't resist self-interest out of logical reasons, but out of illogical emotional reasons then I won't have any problem with that. The problem is it seems Atheists are incapable of saying that because they think they pride themselves on being "smarter" and more "logical" than believers (to think they know FOR SURE what we believe in, does not exist).

Most atheists are "soft" atheists. We do not claim absolute knowledge that all things we would call "god" do not exist. Rather, we find no good reason to believe in any god claims we encounter as true. This does not mean that I do not have knowledge that some gods do not exist. Rather, it means that there are some gods I cannot disprove because they contain no inherent logical contradiction. When we say no gods exist, what we are saying is that, internally, our beliefs are that there are really no gods. We cannot see how there can exist such a thing with the evidence we have seen. We argue that there are no good reasons for believing in a god, so, after hearing more and more failed gods, we reach the inductive conclusion that there are no gods.

There are many logical reasons to embrace some sort of morality for all practical concerns, because having a high chance of not getting caught, is still a chance. However, I understand the problem you raise. It is very similar to the Ring of Gyges, in which an acquaintance of Socrates (the main character) argues there exists no good reason to perform evil when no one is watching. Socrates' challenge is to argue why we ought to follow good, even when we can get away with it.

However, there is a problem with your argument. First, not all theists believe you will be punished in the afterlife; there are a good many who thing the idea of eternal torture is simply immoral. Which leads me to my next point: your argument does not actually argue for morality, but obedience. The fact that the deity looks for good and moral behavior (and I have yet to encounter a religion whose moral code, as a whole, I consider actually moral) does not really matter and is accidental for your claim of self-interest. A self-interested person would follow the orders of a deity, regardless of the morality of it. You have yet to answer the Ring of Gyges. You have not illustrated why I ought to do good no matter what, even in the case of my own self-interest.

Also, I think you are confusing "logical" with "self-interest". Something is logical if it is a conclusion that follows from a set of premises. Self-interest and logic are separable. There still exists no logical reason to follow good or to follow self-interest beyond emotion (emotions aren't illogical). If I do not care about my self-interest, then there is no reason to care about a god's commands. This is, to my knowledge, the basis for Mackie's argument for moral nihilism: there exists no premises that we can support as true and logically reach the conclusion of morality.

 

[quatona]

Wow, I had to deal with business (I run a company) and politics (got my bills passed! yay!) but I must say I am surprised to come back and find like 200 new posts. Sorry to everyone that I don't have the time to read them all and engage you on a one-by-one basis as I would like to.

My whole point with this is there is no Earthly logic in self-denial if you want something and can get away with taking it, whether it is a woman you want, a car you want, or money you want.

This point was understood and addressed. Simply repeating instead of responding to the points made doesn´t make it look like you are interested in or considering the responses.

 

[FullEnglishBrekkie]

Wow, I had to deal with business (I run a company) and politics (got my bills passed! yay!) but I must say I am surprised to come back and find like 200 new posts. Sorry to everyone that I don't have the time to read them all and engage you on a one-by-one basis as I would like to.

My whole point with this is there is no Earthly logic in self-denial if you want something and can get away with taking it, whether it is a woman you want, a car you want, or money you want.

You can as FullEnglishBrekkie said of himself, say that you are afraid of the consequences, but this again illogically ignores my question because I said in a scenario in which you can get away with it. Like how many smash stores and take TVs during a riot. They are being quite logical in the Atheist sense that it is 99% likely they will get away with it and they don't have much to lose.

It is only when you are religious, and believe that you will be punished in the afterlife that it can become logical for you to deny the short-term self-interest of this world in favor of the long-term (eternal) self-interest in the next.

If you can just admit you don't resist self-interest out of logical reasons, but out of illogical emotional reasons then I won't have any problem with that. The problem is it seems Atheists are incapable of saying that because they think they pride themselves on being "smarter" and more "logical" than believers (to think they know FOR SURE what we believe in, does not exist).

If I committed one of those acts, and even got clean away with it with no comeback from any of my victims or the law, I would still have a very uncomfortable sense of guilt and shame. Now, you may say (and you may even be right!) that this is an emotional response not grounded in logic. I could say that this is an innate reaction developed through evolution that prevents society descending into lawless chaos. There is also the logical deduction that that sort of behaviour is detrimental to a community or social group. It is entirely logical to deduce that if that behaviour was adopted by everyone, then it would destroy a community and, therefore, it behoves every individual not to behave that way for the good of the community and therefore for his own good.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wow, I had to deal with business (I run a company) and politics (got my bills passed! yay!) but I must say I am surprised to come back and find like 200 new posts. Sorry to everyone that I don't have the time to read them all and engage you on a one-by-one basis as I would like to.

My whole point with this is there is no Earthly logic in self-denial if you want something and can get away with taking it, whether it is a woman you want, a car you want, or money you want.

You can as FullEnglishBrekkie said of himself, say that you are afraid of the consequences, but this again illogically ignores my question because I said in a scenario in which you can get away with it. Like how many smash stores and take TVs during a riot. They are being quite logical in the Atheist sense that it is 99% likely they will get away with it and they don't have much to lose.

It is only when you are religious, and believe that you will be punished in the afterlife that it can become logical for you to deny the short-term self-interest of this world in favor of the long-term (eternal) self-interest in the next.

If you can just admit you don't resist self-interest out of logical reasons, but out of illogical emotional reasons then I won't have any problem with that. The problem is it seems Atheists are incapable of saying that because they think they pride themselves on being "smarter" and more "logical" than believers (to think they know FOR SURE what we believe in, does not exist).

The fact that you run a business and presumably hold some position of political power is very concerning given that, clearly, ethics means nothing to you unless it is firmly tethered to religion. Without religion, it seems that you would happily exploit those you do business with. To me, that suggests that you don't care enough about the wellbeing of others to treat them humanely, unless you perceive that you are commanded to. I don't mean to be rude, but to me this suggests a deeper problem.