|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4970 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
And, in the same vein, it must be because we think it's right rather than knowing it's right. If we know it's right, then it's a simplistic, easy, objective answer. Honour only exists if we are left in the objective "absolute dark" where we can only think it's right. Honour exists in following the hope that Good triumphs over Evil. If this somehow becomes an objective fact, then we remove the hope and therefore we remove the honour. Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you on this point. To be honest I still haven't settled my mind on the issue, so like you I'm talking out loud to some extent. I just thought I'd at least let you have my initital thoughts. "Honour" is an interesting concept. I think that a person can only be "honourable" if others are aware of them and their actions. Otherwise there would be nothing to honour. If a person is considered honourable it means that others hold them in high esteem. That implies that a person who deliberately acts in what they think is an honourable manner is hoping to receive appreciation from others. So anyone who sets out to be a person of honour is in fact looking to enhance their social status. I.E. They are doing it for themselves. That makes honourable a paradoxical term: most of us instinctively think of an honourable act as being an unselfish one, whereas the person in question is usually acting at least in part for their own benefit by seeking the approval of others (or at least the potential approval of others if they were ever to notice the action). Does that make any sense? That would imply that the person who makes the most objective and unselfish decisions would have to act purely on what they think is the right decision, completely regardless of what anyone else would think. I'm finding it impossible, though, to think of what a "right" decision is, if it is not one that would at least potentially receive the approval of others. This brings me back to my earlier point that morality is all about how we cooperate with each other - for mutual benefit. A truly objective moral decision doesn't seem possible to me. So you may well be right that only subjective decisions can be honourable, although I think we may be coming at it from different angles. I'll ponder it some more!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
If one is truly atheist, why should you have any morality? Why not just do what is best for yourself, and those you love, and the heck with any others?
Is it just a practical consideration, that by being moral in your own mind, maybe its harder to get in trouble, legal or otherwise. Why have principal if you believe life is just a random mix of proteins? I really can't understand that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi BD,
This is one of the most commonly asked questions for atheists. In have to say that I really don't see the problem.
If one is truly atheist, why should you have any morality? The first problem here is that this questions seems to presuppose that we have a choice. I don't remember choosing to have a sense of morality. It seems to me that my morality is, at heart, innate. I'm not saying that I don't consciously choose how to apply that morality, but the general urge to have a moral system is innate. A better question might be "Why behave morally?".
Why not just do what is best for yourself, and those you love, and the heck with any others? Because if I behave well, others are more able to behave well and we have a fairer and better society. Behaving morally is doing the best for oneself and loved ones. Sure, cheating may be a way to gain an unfair advantage, but that takes a rather short-term, vocalised view.
Is it just a practical consideration, that by being moral in your own mind, maybe its harder to get in trouble, legal or otherwise. It's a practical and a philosophical question. Being moral will help you avoid punishment and make it more likely that you will receive fair treatment from others. Both of these are practical advantages, but that doesn't mean that there are good philosophical reasons to be good as well. It's just that the philosophical reasons appeal more to the innate worth of human beings, rather than an outside authority.
Why have principal if you believe life is just a random mix of proteins? I really can't understand that. If one is truly atheist, why should you have any morality? Why not just do what is best for yourself, and those you love, and the heck with any others? Is it just a practical consideration, that by being moral in your own mind, maybe its harder to get in trouble, legal or otherwise. Why have principal if you believe life is just a random mix of proteins? I really can't understand that. I really can't understand what the connection is meant to be. How does the origin of life affect my moral decisions? How does the existence or non-existence of a deity affect my moral decisions? Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4045 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6
|
If one is truly atheist, why should you have any morality? Why not just do what is best for yourself, and those you love, and the heck with any others? Is it just a practical consideration, that by being moral in your own mind, maybe its harder to get in trouble, legal or otherwise. Why have principal if you believe life is just a random mix of proteins? I really can't understand that. This has been answered, but not by me, so I'll give my response. I don't believe in any god(s) or anything supernatural. As such, I think that the moral dictates of ancient scriptures are nothing more than the words of men. I don;t think "good" and "evil" exist as anything other than human concepts, concepts that are as subject to change as any other human social construct. My morality stems primarily from empathy. I understand joy and sadness, love and hate, pain and pleasure. Some of those emotions and feelings are more desirable than others, and some I would wish to outright avoid entirely. I comprehend that other people are just like me, feel the same feelings (if not always for the same reasons), and I simply don't have any desire to cause teh negative feelings, while I take pleasure in causing the positive ones. To put it simply, it makes me happy to make others happy, and when others are hurt or sad it makes me sad. I don't need any deity or written law for any of this - the ability to empathise is part of what makes human beings social animals, and as such is compeltely natural and instinctual. I extend this beyond those I can individually feel empathy for through utilitarian ethics. The simple version is that I do not see moral questions as black/white absolutes where "x" is bad and "y" is good. Instead, I see all moral choices as a question of benefit and harm, for both individuals and society as a whole. Let me give a few examples: Theft is widely regarded as "bad." Under utilitarian ethics, I see that stealing can result in a significant benefit for the thief, but a corresponding harm to the victim. Further, I see that widespread theft would threaten the stability of society, and I don't see trading a personal benefit for another's harm to be equitable. Because the harm caused by theft vastly exceeds the benefit received by the thief, I recognize theft as "bad." I also recognize that theft is not as bad as murder, or rape, because those two acts cause significantly more harm than theft. This is partially because physical objects and money can be replaced, while a rape or a murder can never be undone and will carry significant consequences for the victim and others. A simple combination of empathy and utilitarianism (while recognizing that others will not always hold the same opinions as I do) comprises my moral framework. I don;t consider that life is anything more than a stunningly complex set of self-perpetuating chemical reactions. I don't think the Universe or even the Earth would "care" if humanity all died five minutes from now. I don't think that human life carries any objective value...but as a human being, subjectively I personally value human life a great deal. I don't see any reason to behave unethically. Fear of prison (or Hell, for that matter) doesn't prevent me from being "bad," especially when I don't think I'd get caught. What keeps my behavior ethical is empathy and the honest desire to see others' lives improve rather than suffer, and to value other's abilities to choose for themselves as equal to my own. I give to charity, when I'm able, simply because I recognize that other people are suffering and I don't like that. I vote in accordance with human rights and improving the standard of living for those who have the least because I think they need it more than those who already have a good standard of living. I'll help a neighbor, buy someone's groceries, help a stranger with a flat tire, or call emergency services if I see an accident not because I think it'll get me praise or into "heaven," but just because I don't like other's suffering. I think you'd find that, were you to one day lose faith in your deity, that you, too, would not suddenly revert to an antisocial psychopathic monster. I think you'd find the prospect of hurting another person to be just as undesirable as you do now. I think that you wouldn't steal your neighbor's TV not simply because you're afraid of being caught, but because you don't want your neighbor to steal your TV and so extend him the same respect and courtesy. You'd almost certainly find that, even if there isn't a cosmic father-figure telling you what's good and bad, that you can still figure out a system for yourself. That even if life is "meaningless," we as conscious beings can still create meaning for ourselves. Art, for example, doesn't mean anything objectively. A lizard doesn't recognize the beauty of the Mona Lisa. A tree couldn't care less about whether Pride and Prejudice is better literature than A Tale of Two Cities. The Sun will continue its stellar cycles unperturbed if the Louvre suddenly collapsed. But you and I hold these things as valuable and significant subjectively. So too with life and morality. Human beings decide what is and is not valuable for ourselves. We value our own continued existence, and so empathy allows us to value the lives of others as well. The only "meaning" of life is what you determine, for yourself, that meaning to be. If you determine that the value of your life is tied to worshiping a deity (real or imagined), then that's the meaning of your life. If you determine that the meaning of your life is to experience existence and try to make that experience as positive as possible for yourself and others, then that is the meaning of your life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Granny,
Ok, well its a fair answer, that I would approach several ways. First, if you are atheist, then you believe this innate sense of morality was simply a selected for trait, and that those who were moral had a selective advantage over those who were immoral? That certainly doesn't seem true, because there are immoral people all over the place, and everyone's idea of morality is different anyway-plus how could morality be a survival advantage over brutality? In the rest of the animal kingdom world, brutality, or the threat thereof rules. You said that cheating would only serve a short term goal of results, but I think that is the only goal one would see as an atheist, because any longer term goals are unforeseeable- if there is no innate justice in the world, short term gains are all you can really hope to gain. Secondly, why have morality just because one believes in spirituality? Well, I believe there is a force which connections all of life-therefore I believe my sense of morality is connected to all other living things. There also could be karmic implications to that, in that if I am moral, I at least feel validated in wishing good things for myself (if not expecting of them), whereas were I not moral, I would feel no sense of deserving of good. But I believe your first observation is most telling. You don't really have a choice about feeling a sense of morality-it just is. And that came from somewhere. And one question-do you honestly never get the sense in your life that some things are not being controlled by you? Don't you ever get the occasional feeling that some aspects of your life are simply inevitable? I think this is what some people would call a sense of faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
And you feel this sense of empathy arises from where? If a tree doesn't have it, why do you?
It was simply a mutation that held selective advantages? But it doesn't hold a selective advantage for frogs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
If one is Christian, why should you have any morality? Why not just do whatever you want to and rationalize it as either following God's "absolute" laws (through reinterpretation, no matter how torturous), or that God's "absolute" laws somehow don't apply to you , or that you are somehow serving God by your misdeeds, or that being human you had stumbled as you inevitably will so you ask God for forgiveness each time and God, being a good little invisible friend, will always grant that forgiveness? That is, after all, what we see Christians doing constantly. And that last item (we inevitably stumble and must constantly seek God's forgiveness) is something that fundamentalists do teach.
Christianity does not teach nor promote morality, but rather mindless adherence to an arbitrary set of laws. There is no reason for Christians to develop any sense of right and wrong, but rather only mindless obediance to arbitrary rules in order to avoid God's punishment. There is no reason for Christians to develop any sense of responsibility for their own actions; two reasons: 1) they are only answerable to God and not to anybody else, and 2) if any harm is done by their blindly following God's rules, then God is responsible for that harm because He had made that rule. How could a Christian have any morality? Or have any sense of personal responsibility for his own actions? I really can't understand that.
If one is truly atheist, why should you have any morality? Why not just do what is best for yourself, and those you love, and the heck with any others?
Why should belief in the supernatural have any effect on one's morality? Unless, of course, one's beliefs in the supernatural allows one to belief he can escape the consequences of immorality or amorality. An atheist has no such legalistic loophole. An atheist must be responsible for his own actions and for the consequences of his actions; he cannot escape that and he has no delusions that he could. How could you assume that to not be the case? Is it just a practical consideration, that by being moral in your own mind, maybe its harder to get in trouble, legal or otherwise. Why have principal if you believe life is just a random mix of proteins? I really can't understand that. Just like most everybody, atheists are members of society. We humans are social animals and are therefore also moral animals. Like all normal humans (hence excluding mental illnesses like psychopathy and sociopathy), we feel the need to get along with others and to cooperate with others in society towards common goals. This can indeed be seen, as you kind of alluded to, as a form of enlightened self-interest, because we and those we love do benefit from being members of society, so as we help (or avoid doing harm to) others we are benefitting society which in turn benefits us and ours. Of course, being moral is not all thought out rationally. It's been bred into us. Learning right from wrong and joining into group activities is almost instinctual for us. So why should it be any less so for an atheist. If anything, it is less so for a Christian.
Why have principal if you believe life is just a random mix of proteins?
Now that makes absolutely no sense. What are you talking about? Why would an atheist believe "life is just a random mix of proteins"? Who does belief such a nonsensical statement ... besides Christians, of course. In case you were attempting a misstatement of evolution, be advised that random mixes of proteins really don't have much at all to do with evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4045 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
And you feel this sense of empathy arises from where? If a tree doesn't have it, why do you? Well, among other things, trees don't have brains. Human beings are social animals, much like other apes, or wolves and dogs, etc. Many animals have been observed to care for wounded packmates, or mourn the death of a child. Empathy seems to have a selective benefit in that it allows group activity. You can obviously see the benefit of working together rather than as competing individuals - a lone human is weak, but a society of humans is at the top of the food chain. Caring for other members of the group is what allows the group to function with stability.
It was simply a mutation that held selective advantages? But it doesn't hold a selective advantage for frogs. An animal not possessing a feature does not mean that the feature does not carry a selective advantage. Evolution is not so much survival of the fittest, but rather survival of the fit enough. Frogs fill their biological niche quite well. Instead of caring for other members of their species, they simply lay prodigious amounts of eggs so that high losses of new tadpoles are acceptable. In any event, if you are suggesting that empathy is of divine origins, you'd have to explain why non-human animals also demonstrate the trait, and why the existence of empathy requires a supernatural explanation rather than a natural one. You'd have to provide evidence of a supernatural origin, and a mechanism for its function that better explains observed reality than the current naturalistic explanations, coupled with a corresponding series of predictions based on your mechanism that have been verified with observations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3977 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes: Well, I believe there is a force which connections all of life- ... All life is ultimately connected. It's called macroevolution.
Bolder-dash writes:
...therefore I believe my sense of morality is connected to all other living things. You can't equate the morality of a frog and a human, sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined:
|
My only real problem in my (newly affirmed) strong atheism is that there is no room for an afterlife. When you're dead, that's it, the end. There is a tiny part of me that still wants to entertain some notion of continued existence, but that tiny part is outweighed by my overwhelming feeling (and the overwhelming evidence) that death is the end. While I think Stile did a very good job responding to this, I wanted to throw in my own two cents. I struggle with this thought as well. I'm scared to death of ceasing to exist, and I'm an extremely curious person, so I want to know how the world is in a thousand years. I want to know if the human race has solved its pressing issues of the dya so it can finally move on to new pressing matters. But my most common solution is not to think about it. There's nothing I can do about it, so thinking about it just makes me feel depresed; not wanting to feel dperessed, the easiest thing is to just ignore it. On the flip side, I've had people ask me, in all seriousness, why I don't believe in an afterlife if it makes me sad to think thee isn't one, and I can only answer, "Because my wanting it doesn't make it so. I wish I had enough money that I could quit work and explore the world. I wish no one had to suffer. I wish there was an afterlife where I could keep watch on the world. But every single one of these wishes has the exact same effect on reality, and I can't make myself believe in something."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Thanks for the reply BD,
First, if you are atheist, then you believe this innate sense of morality was simply a selected for trait, and that those who were moral had a selective advantage over those who were immoral? Yes, I think that is likely.
That certainly doesn't seem true, because there are immoral people all over the place Immorality can also give one an advantage and that would be why it would be selectively selected for in certain circumstances. Don't mistake a selective advantage for a moral imperative though. On balance I think that it is obvious that morality provides the greatest advantage for the greatest number. That gives us a good reason to be moral.
plus how could morality be a survival advantage over brutality? In the rest of the animal kingdom world, brutality, or the threat thereof rules. This is untrue, other primates possess a sense of fair-play.
quote:
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Monkeys show sense of justice
quote: Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior - The New York Times Even if they only possess the rudiments of morality, these results show that our moral notions are not entirely unique to humanity.
You said that cheating would only serve a short term goal of results, but I think that is the only goal one would see as an atheist, because any longer term goals are unforeseeable- if there is no innate justice in the world, short term gains are all you can really hope to gain. Long term goals are foreseeable, long term realities, less so. That doesn't mean we can't try. Besides, even as a believer, you are no more able to see into the future than I. Also, if there is no innate justice in the world (which I agree with), that is all the more reason to strive for a positive and productive moral system ourselves; no-one else is going to do it for us, humanity as a whole must guide our own destiny in this respect. By contrast, if morality is God's business, this leaves us with little impetus to sit up and take control of own morality.
Well, I believe there is a force which connections all of life-therefore I believe my sense of morality is connected to all other living things. I wouldn't put it in quite those terms, but I too believe that we are all connected, both biologically and dialectically. Our actions affect others, often whether we mean them too or not. That is sufficient reason to go about our interactions with others in a reasonable and moral way.
There also could be karmic implications to that, in that if I am moral, I at least feel validated in wishing good things for myself (if not expecting of them), whereas were I not moral, I would feel no sense of deserving of good. First, I really don't think that is what is meant by the word "karma". Second, this can be expressed simply in terms of "having a conscience". This is an intrinsic feature of the human mind, reinforced and guided by our social conditioning. There is no need to resort to the supernatural in order to explain it.
But I believe your first observation is most telling. You don't really have a choice about feeling a sense of morality-it just is. And that came from somewhere. Unless you have some kind of compelling reason to believe that you know what that "somewhere" is, this is a non-point.
And one question-do you honestly never get the sense in your life that some things are not being controlled by you? Huh? Do you honestly imagine that i think I control everything? What are you asking?
Don't you ever get the occasional feeling that some aspects of your life are simply inevitable? I think this is what some people would call a sense of faith. Of course some things are inevitable; so what? I fail to see what this has to do with faith, the existence of deities or anything else. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Just a reminder that the topic concerns problems with being an atheist or evolutionist.
It is not a thread where atheists or evolutionists are to explain or defend their choices. Please keep in the spirit of the thread. ThanksAdminPD Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
{Posted as a General Reply for fear of incurring the Wrath of Mod {grin}}
A recurring problem atheists have concerns the wildly distorted and utterly false view that theists (primarily Christians) have of atheists and the bizaare statements that view causes those theists to make. And even more so the inappropriate, malicious, and vicious actions theists have taken and will take solely because of the distorted view that they hold. Thank you, Bolder-dash, for presenting a living example of that wildly distorted view. Of course, I do realize that you got a lot of help from your religious community in forming that wildly distorted and utterly false view. If you want to pursue the discussion of atheists' morality, there have been a number of threads where that's discussed. Edited by dwise1, : added preface Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Bolder-dash.
And you feel this sense of empathy arises from where? If a tree doesn't have it, why do you? It was simply a mutation that held selective advantages? But it doesn't hold a selective advantage for frogs. Trees and frogs are not social animals. We do see similar behavior in social animals, especially in other primates that share our common ancestry, even monkeys:
Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness, Study Saysquote: We also see common moral and ethic beliefs in widely diverse cultures - almost every culture known to man has some variation on the "golden rule," in part because (as Rahvin points out) this is enlightened self-interest: it benefits the society and the society in turn benefits us.
Message 62: If one is truly atheist, why should you have any morality? Why not just do what is best for yourself, and those you love, and the heck with any others? Curiously, if moral behavior really were dependent on religious beliefs, then one would expect to find a significant, large difference in the proportion of the religious people in prison compared to the general population. This just is not true, for the proportions are virtually the same (with slightly fewer atheists and agnostics, but not outside the margin of error for the small sample size in prison). This holds for repeat offenders as well, so don't start thinking that new prisoners convert. The fact is that there is no significant correlation between religious beliefs and breaking the law/s of a country. Page Not Found - HolySmoke!
quote: Which is comparable to the general USA population: Religion in the United States - Wikipedia
quote: There is a difference of 5% (higher in prison than out) in the reported numbers. If anything, it appears that "Judeo-Christian" people are slightly more likely to be in prison than other people (including atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions). This is within the margin of error for comparing these stats from different sources.
Is it just a practical consideration, that by being moral in your own mind, maybe its harder to get in trouble, legal or otherwise. What we consistently see is that moral are defined by the culture and the practical considerations of people living together in a community. Start with the golden rule as enlightened self-interest, and you can derive a basic set of moral ethics that is not significantly different from what you see in society. And we see the golden rule in the behavior of capuchin monkeys, above, and in other primates:
Monkeys have a sense of morality, say scientists:
quote: As a deist, I do not believe that any moral commandments come from god/s, but rather that we are left to our own devices. It is up to us to determine what we conclude, through logic and reason, would be a model for interactive social behavior, in a society where we would like to live -- starting with "do unto others as we would like to have others do unto us" as the basic precept. I don't see the moral ethical issue being any different for atheists: just because they reject belief in god/s does not mean that they are not caring, social, rational and law-abiding people, or that caring, social, rational and law-abiding people are not moral, regardless of beliefs. Regarding the topic, this shows that the issue of morality and ethics is not a problem with being an atheist (or evolutionist (or deist)), but one in defining what we would consider an ideal social framework. So we should return to letting our atheist friends complain about the burden/s they bear. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : topic link we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Well, since many paragraphs have been allowed to be directed towards my remarks-I hope I can at least respond without appearing to be off topic. I think this relates directly to the problems one might consider for themselves if one were an atheist.
I think if one were to believe that morality is simply another mutation that carried selective advantage, one would have to really think that through in their mind in a believable way how that could happen. As most of the examples of so called morality here have been presented, these are all on higher order mammals. So are we assuming that such a mutation first occurred in such mammals? I would love for someone to describe a workable scenario of how such a "mutation" arose and then from its kernel as the very first such individual with this type of trait, could slowly develop and advance throughout a population. What advantage would this lone individual have amongst a whole group without any such trait-and how would it become the dominate trait. If you have a hard time imagining the details of such a scenario-doesn't that make believing that scenario naive? Or you have never imagined the scenario clearly, but simply believe it to be true, isn't that the same logic you believe those of faith use-and are critical of? Secondly, as to how dwise framed it:
If one is Christian, why should you have any morality? Why not just do whatever you want to and rationalize it as either following God's "absolute" laws (through reinterpretation, no matter how torturous), or that God's "absolute" laws somehow don't apply to you , or that you are somehow serving God by your misdeeds, or that being human you had stumbled as you inevitably will so you ask God for forgiveness each time and God, being a good little invisible friend, will always grant that forgiveness? That is, after all, what we see Christians doing constantly. And that last item (we inevitably stumble and must constantly seek God's forgiveness) is something that fundamentalists do teach.A recurring problem atheists have concerns the wildly distorted and utterly false view that theists (primarily Christians) have of atheists and the bizaare statements that view causes those theists to make. And even more so the inappropriate, malicious, and vicious actions theists have taken and will take solely because of the distorted view that they hold. Thank you, Bolder-dash, for presenting a living example of that wildly distorted view. Of course, I do realize that you got a lot of help from your religious community in forming that wildly distorted and utterly false view. Herein we see a very common sentiment from atheists. That the "Christian" community has attacked them unfairly, and thus we see the moral superiority of the athiest. Taken alongside his previous comments about Christians being able to rationalize their misdeeds as serving God, or being able to escape the consequences of morality, it shows a clear picture of one believing that atheism is more palatable based on the distaste one has for their perception of a particular religion. It is as if he is saying, it is much better to be an atheist, because look at the horrible ways in which some Christians have behaved. This is clearly a motivating force for many many atheists. The problem with this (amongst other problems) is that I haven't even made ONE single reference to Christianity in my previous posts, nor have I professed anything about my own spiritual beliefs, and most importantly nor have I made even one single assertion about any atheists morality-but have instead posed a question that based on an atheists belief that all of life is just a random occurrence of proteins, where do they believe their morality is inspired from. That he would be so defensive and fabricate assertions about my own believes based on nothing ("I do realize that you got a lot of help from your religious community in forming that wildly distorted and utterly false view"-well, interesting that you do realize this, because I hadn't realized that my relgious community which doesn't exist, gives me false views that also don't exist!) shows a clear origin of his own stance-which is probably not unique only to this one atheist. In response to the ideas such as RAZD, that studies of monkeys suggest that morality or fairness is an "evolved behavior rather than a cultural construct", this demonstrates a contradiction. On the one hand, many are trying to say that they have morality simply because it is logical and they believe it is best for the society we live in: Granny says: Also, if there is no innate justice in the world (which I agree with), that is all the more reason to strive for a positive and productive moral system ourselves; no-one else is going to do it for us, humanity as a whole must guide our own destiny in this respect. and "Long term goals are foreseeable, long term realities, less so. That doesn't mean we can't try." Now both of these ideas suggest that we should act morally because there are logical reasons to do so. But if as RAZD points out in these studies (which you may disagree with their findings) we don't act morally because it is logical, we do so because we just happened to have evolved that way, just like monkeys-then trying to judge morality as good or bad is pointless-it just is, just as in hair or eye color, or or sweat glands-they are just remnants of our survival, neither good or bad. If morality is not needed for you to survive, there is no real need for it-it is not good or bad, any more than hair is good or bad, it just is-so you can get rid of it if need be, just like you can shave off your hair if you choose. We don't think, we shouldn't shave off our hair, because it is good for our survival, just like it was for our ancestors. Why treat morality any different if it is just another of the many evolved survival traits. So when RAZD says:
I don't see the moral ethical issue being any different for atheists: just because they reject belief in god/s does not mean that they are not caring, social, rational and law-abiding people, or that caring, social, rational and law-abiding people are not moral, regardless of beliefs. I would say I agree, but the question still remains why? I agree that atheists can and do act ethically and morally, but if you believe morality is simply a passed on trait just like hair and skin color and fingernails-and not a logically inspired mindset, then it holds no more importance than any of those other traits-they are simply to be used when needed-and being immoral is no worse than cutting your hair or painting your fingernails. To me it all goes back to the fundamental belief of an atheist. If you truly truly believe that life is nothing more than chance happenstances at the molecular level that have mutated and grown, then why should you believe that there is any difference between a rock and a living organism? What is it that makes "life" unique? A rock is also just part of nature, the same as you or I. Why is smashing a life more important than smashing a rock? How about sand, silicone, is there a difference between a piece of sand and you or I? Why, can't life just be a more sophisticated pieces of sand which have stuck together, as Richard Dawkin's wants us to believe? That is the definition of atheism isn't it-that there is no difference between a rock and a living thing right? If this is not what you believe as an atheist, please explain how there is a difference other than perception between a living and non living thing. If an atheist takes the time to actually think about this (I suspect most prefer not to)how do you justify valuing one thing over another? If you enjoy something because it feels good, that's great, I can understand doing it, but since there is no difference between a rock, and a living thing there is no judgment of good and bad. Again, as atheists, my question to you is, other than how you perceive it in your mind, what is the difference between a living and a non-living thing? Everything is just bits of silicone and the like-some more bits than others. --Perhaps that would make a good subject for a new topic?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024