How do Atheists negotiate right and wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

Atheists do not believe in a God-therefor moral truth is relative. They can see morality as some sort of agreement with mankind that we can all get along.

However as many atheists see human beings as simply clumps of particles , then how do they make it in their mind that you should not rape someone or not murder someone- if they are simply a mere product of evolution and not a real spiritual being, but just a grouping of cells? If there are no moral absolutes, then there is no reason to say that such acts are wrong. Because then "truth" becomes subjective- by our own rules and own definitions, and not by the absolute laws of the Universe.

So in this sense, its more in tune with a psychopath's view of morality- which is none. I'm not suggesting atheists are necessarily psychopaths, but a type of moral insanity would make more parallels. Now many have killed in the name of God- but that doesn't mean that it is based on their beliefs, but rather about a form of control. So you could have someone who just uses God as an excuse to do such things. Or even the devil in cases. Many of these things go against God.

If there is no God, then we are just clumps of molecules and life means nothing, so where is the sanctity of human life in the Atheists and their world view?

How do Christians know right from wrong; you never responded to my reply in your other thread:

Here are the teachings of your loving God and his moral absolutes:

I've decided to take up the teachings of your god and go and besiege and murder the owners of the local cake shop; but I'm not sure if I should steal their cakes before or after killing them? Or should I take them as my slaves instead, all this is new to me, so I'm not sure on the correct order. What should I do with their children - the implication is rather unsavoury? The children own a puppy, do I need to slay that too?

I'm feeling a bit horny; so is it OK to abduct a virgin off the street on my way home from the cake shop and rape her, provided I force her to become my wife?:


Forget the abduction, I've found another solution. I've had a word with the cake shop owner and he's agreed to sell me his daughter as a sex slave as per your god's teachings. Apparently she is under guarantee too, so if she isn't very good in the sack I can send her back for a full refund:



The sex slave didn't work out very well; she refused my commands, so I had to beat her rather hard and unfortunately she died three days later. It was all her fault of course, I have nothing to reproach myself over, she was my property after all:


A bunch of children were calling me names the other day, so I set my dogs on them and they tore the children's throats out. I gather that is fine too:


The moral absolutes of your god are quite *interesting*.

.

Last edited by TallyMan on 08 Sep 2014, 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That does not follow.

Is the only reason you do not rape and murder because God tells you it is wrong?

A less flippant answer is beyond the scope of this post. Go look up John Stuart Mill or someone.

Also, you singling out human life is bigotry. Other species do not necessarily deserve to be treated worse. This is one of the issues with DCT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

I have found that Christians come in so many flavors that moral truth is open to Biblical interpretation in any way that fits your specific church's viewpoints.



And what exactly is the problem with that? Making peace with your neighbors and the minimization of suffering wherever possible sounds like a pretty good basis for morality to me. Seems to me that this line of thinking does more for humanity than an egotistical "I'm better than you" attitude that an awful lot of religious people adopt, which you seem to be expressing with a complete lack of subtlety.



Wow. If I need to explain why these things are wrong and if you only believe that Christians are capable of not raping and murdering everyone they come across, I am not sure you are capable of a discussion so much as condemnation of others who are not like you, which has led to those very things in the name of one religious excuse or another.



There are plenty of religious people guilty of psychopathy. It has nothing to do with one's religion. I would posit that many who believe in a higher power do so based on a built in narcistic need to be much more important in the big scheme of things than they really are.



So some people who believe in god may commit an atrocity, which somehow supports your point? I may be misunderstanding that one.



The sanctity of human life comes from the fact that we only get one very brief ride through this life. If someone around you suffers and dies, it is so much more tragic than if you believe that they will magically come back to life to wander around on golden streets for eternity (or to feast in the halls of Valhalla forever and ever). If you don't believe in a hereafter, it brings much more of a sense of urgency.

I have seen way too many who can simply ignore the pain of others by thinking that if they were a good Christian, their suffering is only temporary and if they aren't a good little Christian then they deserve to suffer agonizing pain for all eternity anyway. How exactly is that demonstrating the value of human life in any way?

False dichotomy, strawman, strawman, false dichotomy, non-sequitur (unless you're misusing the term "moral absolutes", which I don't doubt is possible), and...those last paragraphs are just poppycock.

No God doesn't mean moral truth is relative. You're misrepresenting the atheist position by suggesting that we view life as "simply clumps of particles". You're also misrepresenting the atheist position by suggesting that we view ourselves as "just a product of evolution". "Moral absolutism" is the view that there are absolute moral rules that must be followed, as opposed to the idea that the ends justify the means, so it doesn't follow from what you've said that no moral absolutes=no moral rules. There are very good arguments for secular ethics, and I don't have the time or the patience to explain them to someone whose views are obviously so skewed.

And regarding the bit about psychopaths-- fun fact: on the list of jobs in which psychopaths are most prominent, clergyman ranks 8th.

I suggest you read actual ethical treatises before making these kinds of arguments.

Understanding morality and living morally are difficult tasks for everyone, not just atheists.

Virtually everyone has the following resources to navigate moral difficulties: the ability to reason, the ability to empathize, the sense of compassion, and various regulatory principles derived from common sense and socialization. These seem to be the factors that constitute one's natural moral identity.

But people who believe that morality derives from God's will are arguably disadvantaged for at least a couple reasons:

(1) When God's will conflicts with their natural moral identity, they are pressured to trust God - and distrust themselves - regardless of how severe the conflict is. This means that God could command something that is utterly senseless and heartless from the perspective of their natural moral identity, and they would be pressured to obey uncritically, because God would be the ultimate authority. Kant (a Christian) calls this "heteronomy of will", and contrasts it unfavorably with "autonomy of will" - to have human dignity, he thinks, is to be worthy of nothing less than rational self-legislation. The essence of heteronomy is distrust of oneself and uncritical subservience to an authority whose reasons we need not share or even understand.

(2) The belief that morality derives from God's will seems to make knowledge of morality impossible. We are not God, and it is not the case that the will of God is transparent to us. If we are to know God's will, then it must be revealed to us by indirect means. But whatever those indirect means are, we can never be sure that they're trustworthy reflections of God's will. Honesty and transparency are human values; we are not entitled to presume that God shares them.

I prefer a well-reasoned approach to subjective morality, to an "objective" morality from people who cannot even provide a shred of evidence for their deities.
Also, which deity should we listen to for morality? There "are" so many.

I think we should all covert over to Bacchus.Now this is a fun god.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus

I'll drink to that.

Do you mean the biblical god who personally kills with reckless abandon whenever he feels the urge? Do you mean the biblical god who outright commands his followers to rape, murder and pillage in his name?



If the god of the bible exists, he is either flawed or evil.

Also: http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Argument_ ... e_Morality

How many times has this question been asked?



Morality is something completely separate from religion not a prerequisite. There is nothing preventing someone growing up without religion, and leading a moral life.

How you think the moral principles actually got into your doctrine in the first place? Do you really think such ideas are beyond the mortal realm?

Moral absolutism is frankly stupid, it is the dumbest approach to moral questions. If you take the Bible, it isn't strictly moral absolutism. There are a series of examples, an fables not all that consistent, and some are pretty poor examples of morality. So it is a primitive version of morality, but in no way absolute.

Worse still, many examples of "morality" in the bible would be considered attempts at justification for atrocities by modern standards.

The most obvious example would probably be the suggestion that to balance out genocide, all one must do is invent rainbows.

Wow, so much to unpack here.

Atheists don't consider human beings to be any less worthy of life just because they don't have something called a soul. In fact, if we are mortal beings and not eternal souls, then our short time living is even more valuable. We are like rare flowers that only exist once then die, and are that much more valuable for being rare. Christianity never prevented the United States, which is made up of mostly Christians, from killing people or killing criminals, and in that sense they are hypocrites. When did a Christian president ever turn the other cheek in terms of foreign policy? Never.

Secondly, secular morality is superior to religious morality. Religions have fixed rules that cannot adapt to new and foreign situations. For instance, the Bible says slavery is not immoral. If you no longer believe in slavery, you are admitting that Biblical morality is not absolute. It was subjective and designed to apply to those people at that time.

Thirdly, people have killed in the name of God and been totally consistent with the rules of their religion. Don't you dare try to tell me that stoning an adulterer in ancient Judea wasn't based on a specific religious belief. Don't pretend that the Bible doesn't say that God told the Jews to kill all the (non-virginal) Amalekites.

To say that morality is not absolute isn't to say that we should have no morality. Science is not absolute, and yet it gives us useful technology. We just have to make the best judgements we can make. The same way a Christian makes a judgement to follow Christian morals, the atheist makes a judgement to follow (usually) humanistic values.


The Superiority of Secular Morality

Much the same way you Christians do -- we decide what's right and wrong.

[i]

Thank you so much. This has to said.