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

Post Reply New Topic

I've just now finished expanding and clarifying my post on Page 3. Please re-read for the parts you missed.

The powerful would rule, and, under the atheist's/evolutionist's model, the human race would be actually advancing because of the thieves. Under "survival of the fittest = progress (evolution)", taking every advantage you can take of everyone around you is good. In fact, it's the best service you could possible provide the human race.

And that's why religion is important. Because it postulates an outside, irrevocable, unignorable moral authority.

Exactly. That's a highly reasonable belief from an athiestic/evolutionary perspective.

What about Robin of Loxley?

You could steal it with the justification, "Hey, sorry, lady, but I've got to survive too!
You have only a few years left, whereas I have decades of life to prepare for! Therefore, you're
money really should belong to me."
Only a religious person -- someone who believes in a super-human moral authority -- could take the old lady's side with true conviction.

Last edited by Ragtime on 26 Dec 2008, 11:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

Well, for this to work you're going to have to show that Christian morality isn't a personal preference. Even if all the claims of Christianity were true, it is still within anyone's power to reject them.



A thief can reject Christian morals simply by reflecting that there is no reason for him to take seriously the Christian justification for morality (that we should behave in a certain way because God says so, & if we don't he'll make us suffer forever). An atheist thief might reject morality because he feels stealing isn't wrong for him, but he would be wrong to do this.



Again you're conflating atheism with evolutionary theory, & assuming if you accept the theory of evolution then you must base your morality on it. This is a bizarre thing to do. Again, evolution is the explanation of how life developed - why would anyone base their morality on that? Why would you assume that atheists are obliged to do this? Catholicism, Anglicanism, Episcopalianism, & I assume other Christian churches, accept that natural selection is the method by which life developed - do you think this colours their morality?



Surely you know that these tendencies are in man; to steal, to kill, to lie, etc. If they weren't we wouldn't need moral codes. Clearly any moral code is an attempt to mitigate & control these tendencies. So, why would you feel that a theory which explains these negative tendencies presents a challenge to morality?



This is just wishful thinking on your part. There are actions that increase human suffering; there are actions that increase human well-being. These are objective categories. I suppose it is possible that religion might be the best way of enforcing a moral code. I don't think it is, & I sincerely hope it isn't, as for that to be true it would mean that the only way humans, en masse, can be convinced to do good, is through lies & threats.

you keep talking about "survival of the fittest". how do you know if the "fittest" are not those who do not steal but do the opposite? no one can decide who is fitter than others unless the evolution decides whom to favour in the struggle of life. where do you think altruism came from? it's a part of human nature and if it's evolved so far it couldn't have been due to religion, which is a fairly new invention in the history of humanity.

you can observe altruism among other great apes too, surely you don't think they had a monkey Jesus teach them about morality? ;p

Last edited by anna-banana on 26 Dec 2008, 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Do not do unto others that which you would not want done unto your self.
If you do, then do not complain when others do it too you.

Humans can not make it to the stars being divided, it takes teem work, This is a part of our evolution,
even ants and bees can not build their nests and defend them without teem work.

Team work is vital for star-faring, but humanity is nowhere near developing the means to do so.

Back on topic ...

Those who steal are more mobile, while thos who own property become its slaves. Stealing may then be seen as a means to free humanity from slavery to its possessions.

Exactly, there is a clear evolutionary advantage to human solidarity & altruism. It might be to an individual's advantage to steal & kill & lie, but not to the species'. & anyway, who wants to mate with a thieving, lying murderer?

ok I re-read your post and I think you don't fully understand the theory of evolution (is reading "The Origin of Species" considered a sin...?).

I'm not sure what you mean by "survival of the fittest" if you keep insisting that those who steal are fitter that those who don't. if that were true, then robbers and criminals would've been considered the most desirable and noble among men.

the peacock's tail makes him weaker, slower and less "fit" in the regular sense of the word. yet the bigger and more colorful it gets, the more likely it becomes for the peacock to be desirable to lady-peacocks and to spread his own genes.

there is not absolute in evolution. if the environmental factors change men will have to adapt and suddenly features that before made them successful might become obstacles.

there is nothing to support your thesis that stealing equals being evolutionarily fitter than others.

Clearly, you're projecting what you think I said onto what I actually said, and then getting all huffy at that strawman.
What I said was that stealing is not comdemnable unless you're religious. And, in fact, stealing is admirable if you believe that life advances only through the stronger overcoming the weak, or survival of the fittest.

Actually, most of society does steal, in various monetary and nonmonetary ways. Yet, society goes on.
Corruption is almost universal, and yet the human race thrives.

deleted

Last edited by b9 on 26 Dec 2008, 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

again, please make an effort and try to understand at least the basic rules of evolution if you want to prove that it favours stealing, but until you do that, you're the one with the straw man.