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

[Givemeareason]

No. Because that is circular logic. We do actions for a reason.

And maybe the problem of this thread is I tried to pose it in a way as to ask the Atheists here why THEY don't rape, pillage, steal, etc. And they all have emotional reasons as to why they don't. I was trying to point this out to them so they can see there is no logical reason to reject doing what Judeo-Christian societies view as "evil" when it is in their own self-interest if they can get away with it.

But perhaps a better question would have been: Imagine you're neck-down paralyzed and a person who has no emotions arrives who wants to kill you and take your stuff, and when you ask him to not do it, he asks "Why not?"

Because when I said "Why not?" before, all Atheists could say is "wow". No response. Because they have no answer. That was my entire point and the Atheists here basically conceded defeat at that point.

There is nothing an atheist can say to convince an emotionless person not to. That is my point even if I had to play Devil's Advocate to make it. They are only making appeals to emotion, not appeals to logic, because there is no logic in rejecting your own self-interest or pleasure when you don't have to. There is at least, *some* logic in refusing your own self-interest if you are convinced of the existence of an after-life where bad actions are punished.

But anyways, I really don't have the time for this, wish I could just delete this thread because it's really pointless since most of the atheists here won't "seriously consider" (literally in this thread said that) opposing people's views.

And I get it, when I was atheist I was 100% sure of myself, and in the end it took a spiritual experience for me to convert, and frankly people who become religious simply out of fear or just making a logical guess is not true faith so my thread is pointless since I made the mistake of trying to convince people using logic, rather than emotion. I just don't like using appeals to emotion (particularly empathy/guilt) as the Atheists here are doing like when they say "Being good has it's own rewards" ambiguously and ignoring the reverse "Being evil has it's own rewards" is far more true.

And ironically that "has it's own rewards" statement the Atheists here used comes from a British clergyman who said Virtue gives pleasure but that those without religion who basically act Virtuous only for pleasure's sake will "never get the pleasure because they can never have the virtue".

Your own circular reasoning is an insult to both athiests and christians. The problem you are having is that you are only looking at the worst examples of both. You insult christians by insisting the only reason to be moral is thru the fear of damnation? Only the most foolish of Christians would succumb to such. And you insult atheists by suggesting they would become evil because they have no such fear?? It appears to me that you have no moral basis to justify your existence and are thereby attempting to assign these baseless attributes to others in the attempt to challenge them to disprove you. As a Christian, you should understand that "Judge not lest ye be judged" is a commandment that you should judge but with a warning attached. Christians are to judge and to start out with judging themselves. Christianity is all about judgement. I missing something here?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In absolute terms, yes. But if you compare, you lose: Secular people give far less than Religious people do.

According to the non-partisan Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (by Harvard and other universities):
People who attend church weekly or more are 33% of the population but make up 52% of charitable donations (and this DESPITE us being POORER on average) and 45% of the nationwide time volunteered. Whereas the secular people (who either go to church either zero, once, or twice per year, or explicitly say they are atheist) are 26% of the population but only contribute 13% of the dollars to charity and 17% of the time volunteered.

The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular.

And again, this is despite us being poorer on average!

The problem with many studies on the subject is they group people by what they "identify as" rather than by the truth. If you go based on people who actually believe and attend regularly (since it makes no sense to lump them in with the secularists who attend church only on Christmas/Easter), the differences are DRAMATIC.

And? What point are you driving at here? Lose what?

 

[SkyWriting]

Could you please give an argument in which we should do good actions for the sake of goodness itself?

Karma - the sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence decide their fate in future existences.

 

[SkyWriting]

As a Christian, you should understand that "Judge not lest ye be judged" is a commandment that you should judge but with a warning attached. Christians are to judge and to start out with judging themselves. Christianity is all about judgement. I missing something here?

Yes. It has nothing to do with judgment, yet it does.
The Father is going to see that we have left his side.
There is a result of this action, which is death.
That's not a punishment.....it's like "Leaving the light behind."
"Dark" is the result....or judgement if you choose.

Contrary to what you said....Christianity is all about forgiveness.

God so loved His children, that while we were still sinners, He send His son to die in our stead.

And the quote says "Judge not, because you are going to be held accountable, yourself."

 

[Givemeareason]

Yes. It has nothing to do with judgment, yet it does.
The Father is going to see that we have left his side.
There is a result of this action, which is death.
That's not a punishment.....it's like "Leaving the light behind."
"Dark" is the result....or judgement if you choose.

Contrary to what you said....Christianity is all about forgiveness.

God so loved His children, that while we were still sinners, He send His son to die in our stead.

And the quote says "Judge not, because you are going to be held accountable, yourself."

That is an amusing claim since so many Christians do go about judging. So what connection is there between judging or not judging and knowing that you are going to be judged? Show me where Jesus said exercising judgement is considered a sin. I say that not judging is the sin. Use scripture and prove me wrong.

 

[Givemeareason]

Karma - the sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence decide their fate in future existences.

Isn't that the same message from Jesus?

 

[muichimotsu]

Could swear the general notion of judge not in the Gospels is based around the idea that you have to adhere to your own standard or you're going to be judged in turn. Judging in itself isn't bad, but judging in a thoughtless manner is, or judging in a sense of self righteousness or moralistic attitude.

 

[SkyWriting]

Could swear the general notion of judge not in the Gospels is based around the idea that you have to adhere to your own standard or you're going to be judged in turn. Judging in itself isn't bad, but judging in a thoughtless manner is, or judging in a sense of self righteousness or moralistic attitude.

If there is good judging, the road is very thin.

Romans 2:1-3
Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are that judge:
for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you that
judge do the same things.

 

[SkyWriting]

That is an amusing claim since so many Christians do go about judging. So what connection is there between judging or not judging and knowing that you are going to be judged? Show me where Jesus said exercising judgement is considered a sin. I say that not judging is the sin. Use scripture and prove me wrong.

Scripture provides a message to your Spirit.

diakrinó: to distinguish, to judge
Original Word: διακρίνω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: diakrinó
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-ak-ree'-no)
Short Definition: I distinguish, discern, doubt, hesitate
Definition: I separate, distinguish, discern one thing from another; I doubt, hesitate, waver.

Discernment is good.

23Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man's whole body on the Sabbath?
24Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly."

Here, "judge not according to the old law when the answer to the old law is now here before you."

 

[SkyWriting]

That is an amusing claim since so many Christians do go about judging.

There ARE bad, aren't they?

 

[Eudaimonist]

And maybe the problem of this thread is I tried to pose it in a way as to ask the Atheists here why THEY don't rape, pillage, steal, etc. And they all have emotional reasons as to why they don't. I was trying to point this out to them so they can see there is no logical reason to reject doing what Judeo-Christian societies view as "evil" when it is in their own self-interest if they can get away with it.

You are projecting your own views on the nature of self-interest onto other people. Are rape, loot, and the skulls of one's victims truly in one's self interest if one can "get away with it"? I have no good reason to think so. Logic does not compel me to regard such values as composing my genuine self-interest.

Logic tells me that we are rational and social beings who flourish in peaceful and productive societies, and that this is where my self-interest lies.

I expect that you will simply dismiss what I say as either an "emotional reason" or an insufficiently logical reason, and not simply admit that my reasons are intellectual, not merely emotional.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Cadet]

And I am not ascribing this to race, but rather to poverty itself. You have the luxury of being an atheist due to your sheltered, wealthy upbringing.

This makes no sense. Is there something about being poor that obliges one to believe in god? You've got it kinda backwards, I think. People who are poor submit to religion because it makes them feel good, and they have few options in this regards. The belief that "things get better after you die" is far more attractive to those who have nothing and live in squalor than to those who actually have good reason to enjoy this life. This is not a positive for religion.

No. Because that is circular logic. We do actions for a reason.

And maybe the problem of this thread is I tried to pose it in a way as to ask the Atheists here why THEY don't rape, pillage, steal, etc. And they all have emotional reasons as to why they don't. I was trying to point this out to them so they can see there is no logical reason to reject doing what Judeo-Christian societies view as "evil" when it is in their own self-interest if they can get away with it.

But perhaps a better question would have been: Imagine you're neck-down paralyzed and a person who has no emotions arrives who wants to kill you and take your stuff, and when you ask him to not do it, he asks "Why not?"

I feel the need to point out that the person described in your hypothetical is profoundly mentally disabled. Essentially, a psychopath. There's a reason we lock these people up - firstly, they're a danger to themselves and everyone around them; and secondly, without the threat of punishment, there's simply no way to deter them from doing whatever they want. They lack the basic human empathy which is the basis of all moral decisions.

But if this person has no emotions, does he have fear? If so, my reason would be "forensics has gotten pretty damn good and prison is not a fun place to be". If not, what could the Christian moral system possibly throw at him? Why would he follow the dictates of a god? There's no fear of hell there to motivate it. In fact, why would anyone follow the dictates of a god? You want to talk about "logical reasons"? There is no logical reason to follow divine commands. Unless it's based on the threat of hell, there's no more a link from "God says X is good" to "We should do X" than there is from "I say X is good" to "We should do X", unless we posit some threat. But if this guy isn't afraid of law enforcement or his own conscience, why would he be afraid of hell?

Because when I said "Why not?" before, all Atheists could say is "wow". No response. Because they have no answer. That was my entire point and the Atheists here basically conceded defeat at that point.

Either I've given you an answer with "don't do this or you will suffer for it", or you've defined a being to which no moral system could possibly take hold, and asked us to make a moral argument to stop this being from killing us. In your hypothetical, I might as well be arguing with the rock from "127 Hours" that it would be moral to let my arm go.

There is nothing an atheist can say to convince an emotionless person not to. That is my point even if I had to play Devil's Advocate to make it. They are only making appeals to emotion, not appeals to logic, because there is no logic in rejecting your own self-interest or pleasure when you don't have to.

There is at least, *some* logic in refusing your own self-interest if you are convinced of the existence of an after-life where bad actions are punished.

But hidden in this proposition is the assumption that this life is somehow meaningless - something I would not agree with, and I think most humanists and secularists would disagree with. Indeed, to me, this life is all that is meaningful, and almost everything within that life is dictated by my interactions with others. See, the reason this falls apart is that the "logic" you appeal to is also based on emotion. I have an emotional attachment to not being tortured. If I didn't care either way, I wouldn't be bothered by the thought of going to hell. Similarly, I have an emotional attachment to not being imprisoned. If I didn't care either way, I wouldn't be bothered by the thought of going to hell. I have an emotional attachment to thinking I'm not a terrible person. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be bothered by just ripping that annoying screaming child's head off at the supermarket the next time I'm looking at a 20-minute wait for the cashier.

Hidden in every moral judgment, even divine command theorem, is some emotional aspect. This is unavoidable. A being with no emotions is, for all intents and purposes, immune to morality.

But anyways, I really don't have the time for this, wish I could just delete this thread because it's really pointless since most of the atheists here won't "seriously consider" (literally in this thread said that) opposing people's views.

*raises hand*

Hi, I'm seriously considering your views and statements. I just think they're kind of bunk.

And I get it, when I was atheist I was 100% sure of myself

Wow, you were a lousy skeptic. I'm not 100% sure about anything!

There must be something about goodness itself that compels us to seek it; otherwise, you are a pure ethical egoist.

Which, ironic enough, is the position of at least two atheists on this board, one of which I am pretty sure was in this thread.

*raises hand again*

Hi, I do good things because I would like other people to do good things. That's the big reason. Oh, and it gives me a bit of a high, as it were, to know that I did a good deed, and I can ride that high all day long. Call me an egoist, but apart from sociopaths, the system works.

And you know it's funny how ChristianForums is dominated by atheists even though they are like 5% of the population they make up like 70% of this Christian forum. How can you explain that? It's like you are all missionaries for your anti-religion religion. Like something in your soul is driving you to have a desire to force your viewpoints onto others so you spend all day on the ChristianForums trying to convert Christians into Atheists... what irony!

I'm personally here for three reasons: I like to challenge myself with alternative viewpoints; if Christianity is true I'd like to know, because it's the single most important thing I could know; and I like to feel smart without actually knowing anything, and seeing people deny blatantly obvious scientific reality makes me feel really, really smart.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. Because that is circular logic. We do actions for a reason.

And maybe the problem of this thread is I tried to pose it in a way as to ask the Atheists here why THEY don't rape, pillage, steal, etc. And they all have emotional reasons as to why they don't. I was trying to point this out to them so they can see there is no logical reason to reject doing what Judeo-Christian societies view as "evil" when it is in their own self-interest if they can get away with it.

Except that it is not in our self-interest at all, as Mark nicely pointed out earlier.

But perhaps a better question would have been: Imagine you're neck-down paralyzed and a person who has no emotions arrives who wants to kill you and take your stuff, and when you ask him to not do it, he asks "Why not?"

Because when I said "Why not?" before, all Atheists could say is "wow". No response. Because they have no answer. That was my entire point and the Atheists here basically conceded defeat at that point.

There is nothing an atheist can say to convince an emotionless person not to.

The "emotionless person" in this hypothetical sounds like a psychopath; someone who doesn't care at all about how his actions affect others. As I asked you earlier, on two occasions at least, how would religion make such a person moral?

That is my point even if I had to play Devil's Advocate to make it. They are only making appeals to emotion, not appeals to logic, because there is no logic in rejecting your own self-interest or pleasure when you don't have to. There is at least, *some* logic in refusing your own self-interest if you are convinced of the existence of an after-life where bad actions are punished.

But anyways, I really don't have the time for this, wish I could just delete this thread because it's really pointless since most of the atheists here won't "seriously consider" (literally in this thread said that) opposing people's views.

We have seriously considered it. Your argument is poor.

And I get it, when I was atheist I was 100% sure of myself,

We've been over this before: what you were like when you were an atheist isn't necessarily what all atheists are like.

 

[The Cadet]

The "emotionless person" in this hypothetical sounds like a psychopath; someone who doesn't care at all about how his actions affect others. As I asked you earlier, on two occasions at least, how would religion make such a person moral?

Huh, I haven't read the thread at all. Seems like the problems with this argument are pretty readily apparent.

 

[Givemeareason]

Could swear the general notion of judge not in the Gospels is based around the idea that you have to adhere to your own standard or you're going to be judged in turn. Judging in itself isn't bad, but judging in a thoughtless manner is, or judging in a sense of self righteousness or moralistic attitude.

Exactly. So therefore we are wise to judge judge ourselves.... and others. The problem is failing to adhere to our own standards.

 

[Givemeareason]

If there is good judging, the road is very thin.

Romans 2:1-3
Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are that judge:
for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you that
judge do the same things.

The reason there are so many confused people going around today is because they fail to exercise judgement. It is imperative that the road be widened so people do not fall off so easily.

 

[Givemeareason]

Scripture provides a message to your Spirit.

diakrinó: to distinguish, to judge
Original Word: διακρίνω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: diakrinó
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-ak-ree'-no)
Short Definition: I distinguish, discern, doubt, hesitate
Definition: I separate, distinguish, discern one thing from another; I doubt, hesitate, waver.

Discernment is good.

23Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man's whole body on the Sabbath?
24Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly."

Here, "judge not according to the old law when the answer to the old law is now here before you."

Absolutely!

 

[Givemeareason]

There ARE bad, aren't they?

They are bad ONLY when they fail to apply the same standard to themselves. Discernment is so very needed today.

 

[Chany]

You are projecting your own views on the nature of self-interest onto other people. Are rape, loot, and the skulls of one's victims truly in one's self interest if one can "get away with it"? I have no good reason to think so. Logic does not compel me to regard such values as composing my genuine self-interest.

Logic tells me that we are rational and social beings who flourish in peaceful and productive societies, and that this is where my self-interest lies.

I expect that you will simply dismiss what I say as either an "emotional reason" or an insufficiently logical reason, and not simply admit that my reasons are intellectual, not merely emotional.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Speaking of the ethical egoist, Mark's right. If one is being honest, I do not see how rape aids in one's quest for eudaimonia or, if we want to be more modern, utility. Sure, you might get something out of it immediately (this is an hypothetical, all I can see out of it is some incredibly short term gratification or release of tension), but rape seems to signify greater psychological problems that get in the way of one's self-interest.

There may be no absolute logical reason to care about one's own self-interest the same way gravity compels us to stay seated on the ground, but the second you abandon rational self-interest, you lose everything, including your own argument.

P.S. I am referring to the OP of this thread when I use the term "you", not Mark.

 

[Chany]

*raises hand again*

Hi, I do good things because I would like other people to do good things. That's the big reason. Oh, and it gives me a bit of a high, as it were, to know that I did a good deed, and I can ride that high all day long. Call me an egoist, but apart from sociopaths, the system works.

I understand your point. However, there are a couple problems with this.

First, not everyone must be a medical sociopath to exhibit sociopathic traits. People can easily be conditioned to feel less affected by stealing something from someone, especially given circumstances. Which leads me to my next point-

Second, this attitude does not bode well for moral dilemmas. Let's say I hit a person out in the middle of nowhere and kill them while I was speeding. Would the good feelings of doing the right thing and telling the cops outweigh at least a decade of jail time? What happens in trolley cases, where I am given the choice between killing one person or letting five people die? Both decisions have logical consequences that we would like to avoid, but we have to bite the bullet and accept one of them: which bullet do we want to bite? Which leads me to my next point-

Third, it has a undefined and unrefined definition of good. What exactly is a "good thing"? Is it based in virtue? Duty? Utility? Respect? Dignity? Social contract?