Atheists: Is stealing wrong? If so, explain why.

Post Reply New Topic

"Cuz God says so" is no explanation at all. An old argument on this subject goes like this: If God's opinion is the sole criterion of righthood, then it's indistinguishable from mere whim, and therefore does not deserve to be trusted. If God, on the other hand, refers to a universal standard of righthood, we could follow that standard by ourselves without having to ask the invisible man in the sky. Either way, a god is useless as a moral compass.

Stealing is *not* survival of the fittest in a social species. Part of human fitness is in the ability to be unified with the group, because pre-technology it was only by mob strength that we could fight off lions or other predators that wanted to eat us. Exile was the equivalent of a death sentence. Stealing another's posessions makes that person dislike you, and stealing frequently from multiple people is likely to turn everyone else in the group against you (it's pretty difficult to hide who is guilty in a small tribal group with few individual posessions, all of which are hand-made and therefore unique).

Likewise, compassion, friendship, and altruism are good for the group and therefore good for the individual which shows those traits (to a reasonable extent): therefore selected for and increased within a social species.

Atheism is solely the assertion that no Gods exist. Christianity is, amongst other things, the assertion that all non-Christian Gods do not exist. The same goes for other theistic religions. In that way, Atheism is the religion that is least dissimilar to other religions.

However, all other religions make further assertions. From a strict logic standpoint, this makes Atheism the second most plausible religion - right behind Agnosticism, which really doesn't say anything at all, except that it might be a good idea to just ignore the whole God idea all together.

In my eyes, this does not qualify Atheism or Agnosticism as religions, since part of my definition of a religion is a uniting principle. Since that is a purely semantic issue it is entirely irrelevant - we could simply define religion however we wanted, but for purposes here let us assume that it includes Atheism, Agnosticism, Ignosticism, and other -ism's that lack a unifying purpose.

What you seem to be asking is "How can you adhere to a moral system if it is not given to you by your religion? (or other authority)".

As a former Atheist I would ask where your moral authority got their ideals (from other people of moral authority). Individual members of non-Christian, traditional religions get their moral guidance from the same place. Ultimately as an individual you made decisions on which morals you wanted to try to adhere to (in part by your choice of religion - I hope your not one of those who was a defacto member of whatever was common in your community), and you further made decisions about which moral principles you were going to actually follow (Christians commit crimes, too).

As a childhood Atheist I created an outline of morals that were ultimately based on very simple principles. And since I remember creating and enumerating them, I can assure you that they were not principally based on outside sources. I was driven by a desire to know not just 'a truth' but THE truth, and I knew that such an endeavor would be perilous and could only be accomplished by the best sort of person. So I made a personal code that was rooted in what made me feel the best about myself - a code that if followed strictly would turn me into a moral paragon.

One of my prime beliefs was the assertion that what I knew and believed was imperfect (and that I must make it more perfect). This had two reasons - because I was constantly finding better, more accurate and more logical perceptual models, and that I had seen Christians believe too firmly in things with two little founding. They called this "faith" and PRIDED themselves on what they could believe with the least evidence. (if you are going to say that this is a belief rooted in part from another religion, I say that if personal experience isn't permitted to influence moral beliefs then any beliefs which are moral are so only through accident)

My beliefs have mutated over time due to my experiences, and that belief.

Now I am a Taoist and I believe that it is foolish to hold faith in something without cause. I do have faith, yes, but it is not blind. I have faith when I believe that things will work out, despite not seeing anyway that it can. I believe this because I know that by taking positive actions in my life, I create an environment in which I am supported in my endeavors. I believe that good things are good because they are beneficial, even through avenues that I can not perceive. (if you consider my prime childhood belief it is easy to see how I can accept that I can have functional understanding that I do not explicitly know the mechanics to)

Similarly, as a Taoist, I don't do bad things because they are bad. A thing that I should not do will natively have repercussions that will reinforce that I should not do it. Sticking my hand in a fire is bad because I get burned. Murder is wrong (in part) because I create an environment where others need to forcefully defend themselves. I don't steal because it generates an environment of mistrust that will outweigh even the most favorable rewards of stealing.

Under both religions I would gladly steal under the right conditions. I will even kill people under the right conditions. Under both religions I recognize that it is evil to not fight against evil (regardless of how you specifically define evil), and that extraordinary steps can and should be taken in limited situations. If you take offense to this paragraph and seek to prove that killing is never right, I suggest you start by disproving the need for a military.

So, all that said, how do Christians justify not doing crimes when absolution from the most heinous of acts is only a prayer away?

If nothing else, do atheists respect the law? Theft is against the law. Or does the only exist when it's on your side? Where is your moral compass?

Is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread if you are starving?

What really justifies ownership? Should other people suffer so others can hoard possessions and land they don't really need.