There are a number of professed atheists in this forum. I was curious as to what sort of moral imperative atheists are beholden to when presumably no one is looking. Speaking as a theist, I am constantly cognizant that there is a God who considers what I do and is aware of what I do, even though that awareness on my part may not always result in the moral behavior which I aspire to. But let’s take a fairly mundane example — say theft. We’re talking about blatant theft in a context where one could plausibly or even likely get away with it. I affirm to you that as a Christian, or more relevantly possibly, as a theist, I would never do that. Possibly it has just as much to do with my consideration for the feelings and rights of some other individual, who has “legal” possession of said items, as it has to do with my awareness of an omniscient creator who is aware of what I’m doing and who would presumably not bless me if I violated his laws. I mean, I care about the rights of other people. And, considering other moral tableaus, those of a sexual nature for example — I would personally never consider going to a prostitute for example, in that I feel empathy for that person, and how they are degrading themselves in the sight of God, and how I would not want to contribute to their degradation, so that my own human lust would never result in me victimizing another human being in that way. So in summary, there are all sorts of constraints on my personal behavior that stem directly from my belief in God, and I am honestly curious about the inner life of professed atheists in such matters. In other words, do atheists for example, in such junctures of moral decision, only consider whether they can get away with it, i.e escape the detection of human authorities? I am just honestly curious about the inner life of atheists in such matters.
692 thoughts on “What is the moral calculus of atheists”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
So what? People can still do, on theism, what they can do on atheism. Your theistic moral system solves nothing here.
People can still just choose to desensitize themselves from their conscience and empathy, they are still just subjective experiences whether god exists or not. They’re no different from sight or hearing, you can choose to act on them or not whether god exists or not.
And you can STILL desensitize yourself from it and just do whatever you want.
So it’s really no different at all.
Sorry I’ve been gone all day, seems this thread has really taken off. Will peruse all the responses. Thanks to all for your feedback. Glad the thread wasn’t deleted, thought there was a chance it might be.
By your logic, there’s also no “signficant reason” to “desensitize” it.
An application of your logic.
JT,
No, that sort of thing happens at UD, not TSZ.
Yes there is, your own and other people’s well-being. That is significant.
The society we live in is critically dependent on a certain level of trust in each other, that’s a significant reason to make an effort to continue upholding and adhering to “the rules”.
Exactly the same on atheism. Our actions have consequences already in this life, consequences for ourselves and consequences for the people we care about.
JT
What about gods who approve of, and specifically ordain, prostitution? Are those faithful adherents who devote themselves to sacred sex degrading themselves? How could you tell whether they were or weren’t?
What evidence do you have that your particular god disapproves of prostitution? Everywhere at all times or just somewheres at some times? Is your god jealous of humans’ abilities to give and receive sexual pleasure?
Is your personal idea of what is acceptable and what is degrading shaped more by your empathy, which you mention you do have — in which case your idea can be shared by any atheist whose moral concern is on the sex-workers possibly unhealthy and possibly coerced working conditions? And in which case, what does god even have to do with it? Why drag the goat-herders’ scripture into it as a justification for your feeling (empathetically) bad about coercive prostitution? Why not just own your own feelings, instead?
If you claim prostitution is degrading because you read your scripture as saying so, then where does empathy come into it? Empathy is superfluous if you have a ruling from god; obey god’s given laws and you’ll be fine no matter what you happen to feel or not feel.
Of course, if we’re going to talk about scriptural basis for morality, we have to wonder why you don’t want to remain celibate all your life as you were commended to do: “Better to marry than to burn” — if you cannot control your lust – but better by far if you can remain unmarried and devoted only to the lord’s affairs. 1 Corinthians 7: 38
Why is it suddenly moral to be frantic with lust for your newlywed spouse when it was immoral just the minute before the judge signed the paperwork? Is it more or less moral if the couple don’t expect it to last but must try to make marriage work rather than have loving friends-with-benefits sex, because “marry or burn” has been drummed into their heads? Is is more or less moral if the man paid a bride price to the woman’s family, or if the bride brought a dowry with her, or if the couple are penniless teenagers who have married for “true love” against the wishes of their more-practical parents?
Why do christians (theists of all kinds, really) want to know how atheists solve moral questions when christians have no idea how they solve their own?
The argument isn’t about what people do – it’s about how they rationally justify their moral views & actions with their atheistic premise.
Sure it does. It solves several logical inconsistencies that plague most atheistic versions of morality, and it prevents the hypocrisy that exists in most versions of atheistic morality.
Still making my way through all the posts, but I have often wondered whether some self-professed atheists are in fact Christians, but just don’t know it. There are certainly self-professed Christians that are atheists for practical purposes:
(Titus 1:16) They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
Is it possible that some self-professed atheists consider the “God” of say, a pedophile priest and respond, “The God you claim to believe in doesn’t exist”. But in following the dictates of their own conscience, some self-professed atheists are in fact following God but just don’t know it, “and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies [them] from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Wishful thinking on my part, maybe.
(Romans 2:14-15) (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
As opposed to the hypocrisy that exists in ALL versions of theistic morality …
No, I don’t expect my emotional reactions and subjective personal preferences to be rationally explicable.
<
Buddha wasn’t a Christian, but Jesus would have a made a good Buddhist.
You might want to consider the possibility that you are reading the wrong religious texts and following the wrong religious leader, JT.
Of course it has something to do with the hypothetical atheist me; it disgusts me physically and emotionally (just to be clear, I’m only talking about a hypothetical version of me).
There’s no “why” to it. I just do.
That’s how I’ve defined what is immoral – that which I find physically and emotionally repulsive. Do you, as an atheist, have another definition of morality I should adhere to?
It revolts me physically and emotionally.
Because of how I have defined “what is immoral”. Is there some other way I should define it?
I’ve already explained this. I have defined “what is immoral” (how people should not behave) as “that which revolts me physically and emotionally.” As the hypothetical atheist, homosexuality – the idea of it, the observance of it, the implication of it, the discussion of it, the media representations of it – happens to revolt me physically and emotionally.
Is there any logically arguable reason (such as, faulty premise or bad inference) I shouldn’t consider it immoral, and shouldn’t do whatever I can to put an end to as much of it as I can?
I’ve been busy all day as well, so my response is a bit late.
It seems to me that you have a few underlying assumptions that should be questioned. One is that atheism is a form of belief, with entailments with respect to morality. That’s not the case. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god or gods. That’s it.
Atheists might believe in any number of bizarre concepts like the healing power of crystals, homeopathy, alien abductions, vaccinations causing autism, or a government that actually does more good than harm. Knowing that someone lacks belief in a god or gods tells you very little about his or her other views.
The same is true, of course, of theists.
Thanks for an interesting post.
I am sure that you don’t mean it that way, but this could be considered quite insulting to “self-professed” atheists, particularly those like myself who were raised in a Christian environment and went through the struggle of leaving it. You seem to be saying that all good people are really Christians when you come right down to it.
I suggest rather that some people are good despite being self-professed Christians.
Out of curiosity, why do you add “self-professed” to the word?
Empathy is indeed a dangerous thing. But it remains a necessary motivator in moral decisions that deal with the welfare of others. As your links to KN and other discussions have implied, either explicitly or implicitly, another key factor in how empathy must be managed includes knowledge, which really has to come about through scientific learning. Somebody mentioned above about the possibility of moral progress, rather than simple changes in morality. Progress in morality requires knowledge. Would the Aztecs still have considered human sacrifice to be moral if they knew through science that the real cause of rain and drought was global weather systems, the interaction with air and sea currents? Is the knowledge that human sacrifice will have absolutely no effect in ensuring continued rain for the crops enough to change the perception of society to acknowledging it as a fundamental immoral injustice? Or will it continue under a new value, the value of “tradition” for its own sake?
I’m not a big fan of tradition, BTW.
Empathy may be overridden for practical considerations in specific circumstances — my desire to help a victim of ebola virus may be overcome by my desire to not be exposed to the disease for the sake of myself and my family. But that doesn’t mean empathy is not valid as the ultimate foundation of human ethics. The recognition that other beings are fundamentally like ourselves, and the ability to value that recognition is a powerful filter in ferreting out right and wrong, even where ethics is admittedly situational.
How would you argue that it is harming me to desensitize my conscience under atheism? Under atheism, why should I consider other people’s well-being?
If I’m reasonably certain that my predatory dismissal of the usual rules of conscience for myself will not cause the downfall of the kind of society that benefits me while I’m alive, why should I care about my impact on society?
They are not necessary consequences; they are arbitrary consequences. Good or bad may happen as a result. The chaotic mix of what life is under atheism certainly cannot predict what eventual and aggregate outcomes will occur no matter what I do. If I find that my predatory habits seem to serve me well and accrue a more enjoyable life, why should I choose otherwise?
Unless outcomes are necessary (predictable), consequences are chaotic or arbitrary at best. Under atheism, with no spiritual law or architecture in place that delivers necessary consequences at some point, who knows if what I do will ultimately help or hurt society – even if I cared about society in the first place?
No, it’s not. Any dictionary and wiki will disagree with Patrick’s blatantly erroneous definition.
On what basis should it be considered one way or the other? That’s like asking if April showers are immoral.
That’s a really stupid definition.
Any dictionary or Wiki can embellish the definition all they want, but Patrick is correct. Atheism simply and literally means “no gods”.
Sweet Zarquon, not this “unleashing the beast” rubbish again. It has already been established that theism does *not* make people behave better. I’m sure I even did a thread on the statistics. The correlations are the other way around. Which is not to say that atheism makes people behave better either.
Whose Jesus? Luke’s, Mark’s, Matthew’s, or John’s? Or one of the “apocryphal” texts? Or some other Jesus?
Depends what you think a Christian is.
Hmm, you might have to ask the Devil, since that’s who (supposed)y) said it. Or at least according to Ray Wylie Hubbard, who sings it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qX5TSmTyHc
Here’s the whole verse:
No, that’s not a typo on “never” 🙂
On a more serious note, I don’t have any reason to pick among the various gospels, apocrypha, etc. We know none of them contain an accurate record of the real words of the actual Yeshua, assuming that there even was an actual Yeshua ben Yosef — which I do think is a reasonable assumption. But whatever he specifically said, the only parts of his religious theory of the world which might have matched reality are the parts which overlap with those parts of Buddhism which are also true. Life is suffering, and the only way to avoid that is to stop coveting things, including coveting bodily life itself “Consider the lilies of the field …” Don’t add to others’ sufferings; be compassionate and charitable. “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another …”
Did Yeshua say any of those things? I don’t know. If he didn’t, then the street-magician/rabbi who was inciting revolt against the political powers in Galilee was no different from David Koresh. If he did say any of them, then he partook in some of the wisdom that occasionally bubbles up among our human kind.
Remember, Jesus Christ was never a Christian.
Edit: trying to get correct link
You have been lucky to be born in socoety formed in the christian values. Do not ask to live in a different one, God could concede your wish.
Don’t agree, but if you can find a reputable biblical scholar/historian that supports this I could be persuaded. For one thing, I don’t see any evidence that Jesus was trying to escape suffering through meditation. For another, the “nice” passages are excellent candidates for invention. The woman taken in adultery (“He who is without sin, cast the first stone”) is widely considered to be made up, for example.
If Jesus was anything, he was a religious reformer, not trying to start a new religion but to make sure Judaic practices were in accordance with his interpretation of the law. The temple scene is generally thought to be probably historical.
Sorry Rumraket, I am others things to do, not only be online all the time to answer comments.
Why is irrational? Tell me your”calculus” and I will show the irrationality. As I did with Davehook that explain his morality with utilitarism but he is going to save people without any utility. For a full analysis of irrationality of morality wothout God I recommend Kants “Critique of the practical reason” or Plato phylosophy.
Seeing as we are at The Skeptical Zone and not conservative Sunday School, evidence that (a) this being can grant wishes? (b) a Christian society is the best possible society?
1) You don’t understand what utilitarian moral reasoning is. Try wikipedia. Available in many languages
2) I didn’t explain morality as purely utilitarian. I wasn’t talking about just mine, by the way.
3) I’ll have an ‘e’ please, Bob.
Dave HookE
The problem with the “overall utility” is how to determine it. Some time ago here at TSZ I said that Stalin decisions were taken in order to achieve the “overall utility”. Were that decisions morals?
a) Try DavehookE, try hard with faith, but be carefull with what you wish 🙂
b) Do you know any other better?
Off course I do not understand “utilitarism” and just in case you are not “only” utilitarian.
Blas,
Faith didn’t help this guy very much:
Pastor says he tried to save man swept out to sea during baptism
Not that simple, before you have to define what a good man is.
davehooke: Seeing as we are at The Skeptical Zone and not conservative Sunday School, evidence that (a) this being can grant wishes? (b) a Christian society is the best possible society?
a) I wish you reserved belief for things backed up with more than superstition.
b) Yes, but yours is the positive claim: We shouldn’t try to change society because Christian values are best. You don’t say how, why, or what type of government we might expect. I can’t think of many more pointless places to preach than here, so why don’t you at least try to find a way to research information, if such a thing be possible?
Huh?
The only people who propose that Jesus was a “buddhist” — or even heard anything about buddhism via traveling wise men — are cranks. There’s no reason to think that Jesus/his followers had any kind of meditation practice. But I’m sure they knew a lot about suffering.
It’s possible that Yeshua ben Yosef was nothing more than a David Koresh of his time, scourging the temple and taking leadership of a sect who believed in reawakening the “true faith” of their ancestors If so, then Yeshua had no particular wisdom; and nothing of the things he is rumored to have said have meaning for us. That’s not a shame; why would I care? I’ve never been a follower.
It’s possible that the mad rabbi Yeshua had some real wisdom which he struggled to express among the stifling constraints of goat-herder religion, rumors of which survived the two generations of oral transmission before being recorded, however garbled, by the gospel authors. If so, that’s a much more interesting story, and if so, it’s not surprising we still read into it hints and echoes of that wisdom today. Why would I care? Only because I am an appreciator of the recurring spark of human greatness, greater than the gods we invent for ourselves. I’m still not a follower, though.
All lives end. All hearts are broken.
Since there’s no heaven, what matters is how we live in the meantime. How we clean up our own intentions and how we expand our compassion to those beyond our tribe.
[KeithS:] “Imagine you wake up in the morning with incontrovertible evidence that God doesn’t exist.”
I can’t imagine that ever taking place. I thought one couldn’t prove a negative anyway. From a computational standpoint though, if a process P outputs X then P is just a restatement of X, i.e. X in another equivalent form. So, DNA for a human is just a precise recipe for a human. So are the sum total of effects that resulted in complex life a precise recipe for complex life. By invoking P, you’re just pushing back what needs to be explained. You can say P just arose by chance, but chance is never a scientific explanation, might as well skip P and just say X arose by chance. Chance is the starting point that science resolves. So, there must be at least an eternal regression of P for however far back you want to look. Its certainly true that, no matter how far you go back, it was always a possibility that things like humans could come into existence. So its a facet of reality itself that sentient beings can exist. If one equates reality with God, then sentient life is a facet of God. Certainly Reality/God has sentience, and is aware of itself, as we are sentient and aware of ourselves and the universe, of which we are a part. (Maybe all this is incoherent. I don’t consider it authoritative or anything. Oh well.)
In fact both the Old and New Testament teach that men are gods. Christ himself uses one such passage from the Old Testament as proof that he is God:
(John 10:34-36) Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came–and the Scripture cannot be broken– what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
A person believing that Christ pays the eternal debt for sin, is what immediately gains him entry into the eternal family of God.
[KeithS:] “For example, I’m ashamed that I ever thought of homosexuality as a moral failing. All I can say in my defense is that I was just a kid, foolish enough to accept the Bible as a trustworthy moral guidebook”
I wouldn’t say at all that the Bible beats to death the subject of homosexuality, you can list the passages that mention it on one hand. I think people’s aversion to homosexuality in past eras was more visceral, fundamental, and related not so much to the Bible, as to deeply entrenched societal norms that said, “Somehow, this just isn’t right”. Plenty of cultures that don’t venerate the Bible don’t consider homosexuality normative or healthy in their society. There are all sorts of innate cultural taboos. Homosexuality used to be one of them, now its not. We’ll see how that turns out. Cultural taboos are an inherent feature of society. We still have lots of them.
Its crazy to me that Ronan Farrow for example, is “gay”. You can hear his gay lisp in his broadcasts, it annoys me. Somehow I don’t think he would be gay if he had been raised by Frank. But instead he was reared by his Mom and in liberal schools that said, “Hey, its normal! If you feel some inclination in that regard, dive right in!”
[Omagain:] “As noted in one of the first posts, perhaps it’s because the “sin then forgive” cycle is really believed that they think they’ll be able to get away with it in the “long term”, so to speak? Seems atheists know that is nonsense and are perhaps less likely therefore to behave in such ways as they know their “sins” cannot just be washed away in the blood of another’s sacrifice. Are there figures”
The epistle writers of the New Testament condemn the idea that the gospel is a license to do evil (though some in the Church do seem to treat it that way):
(Jude 1:4) For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
And also, there is no promise of forgiveness of sin as such in this lifetime for Christians:
(Romans 8:12-13 NKJV) Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation–but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it.For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,
But I guess atheists don’t believe there will be repercussions after death for their sins either, as they don’t believe in an afterlife. And the New Testament doesn’t teach there are no repercussions for sin in this current life for Christians. But even in this current life, its not a karmic type of retribution for sin, i.e. you can sin over and over and escape judgment if you repent at a certain point, e.g. a person could do drugs heavily for a period of his life and escape permanent health issues by the mercy of God so to speak, presuming at some point he repents. But if he does drugs long enough it can result in permanent health problems or death.
Also, you have to consider the reality of sociopaths in all walks of life — at church, at work, etc — people who are inherent imposters in all that they do, who deep down think that life is a game, and will say anything and do anything to reap approval from people they only intend to exploit for their own purposes. So, there will be people like this in the church, no doubt. There’s acually a book by Dr. Phil called “Life Code” which is a detailed study of this sociopathic personality type and how prevalent it is.
[DNA_Jock:] “All I have to do is imagine that my daughters are watching, and the right course of action becomes clear. There is no requirement that any person or God is actually watching, nor that there be any negative consequences.”
It should be mentioned how rapidly we are converging on a totalitarian worldwide technological dystopia, where everyone is literally watched and listened to continually. This will be the Curse of the Beast of Revelation imo, a substitute for God, that compels everyone to behave by watching everyone literally all the time. And forcing everyone to behave is what I guess some people think God himself would do, if he really existed.
[davehooke:] “Whatever you believe, you can ignore your conscience just like you can ignore chest pains, major or minor. Eventually, it’s going to catch up with you.
IIRC, 90% of people have a conscience and life is a whole lot easier when our actions acknowledge our moral intuitions. The other 10% are a worry, but a proportion of them act morally because it is the perfect disguise, or just the best way to get what they want from others in most situations.
Moral reasoning can be consequentialist or deontic. Rather than talk about the moral reasoning of theists and atheists, those two categories are much more fruitful to learn about. A more sophisticated ingrained prejudice about atheists and moral reasoning (and in some countries and/or communities these prejudices must be hard to resist) might be the idea that all atheist moral reasoning is consequentialist. This is not so. For example, I think there is never a good reason for torture.”
Don’t have a response, just appreciated the insightfulness of your comments.
[hotshoe:] Buddha wasn’t a Christian, but Jesus would have a made a good Buddhist.
You might want to consider the possibility that you are reading the wrong religious texts and following the wrong religious leader, JT.
You know actually I sort have gotten intrigued by Theravada Buddhism (i.e. real buddhism) of late, primarily because of the writings of this guy. Real Buddhism is very weird, they believe in reincarnation but not the transmigration of the soul (they don’t believe in souls, I think). Its fundamentally atheistic. Its so systematic and well thought out and frankly, bizarre. I enjoy reading about it, consider it. Would never deny the deity of Christ or his atoning sacrifice on the Cross.
I have to wrap this up. Thanks for the responses of all. Sorry some of my responses have been slap dash. Not really doctrinaire about anything. I just flipped open the Bible randomly to the following passage and it seemed relevant, so I thought I would quote it in full.
Matthew 25:31-46) “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Or were trying to escape suffering.
I put my sandal on my head and walk away.
That is wrong.
This is outtake dialogue from This Is Spinal Tap, right?
Evidence or argument for assertions might be productive. Preaching, not so much.
And there is simply is no difference, people still can and do what you claim they don’t and can’t on theism.
People CAN desensitize themselves from their conscience and empathy on theism, just as well as they can do it on atheism. And they DO it too.
What logical inconsistencies, William?
Lay out the argument and point out the contradictions.
You keep making this blind assertion about logic, but you have yet to make even one explicitly logical statement or argument to support the claim.
What hypocricy, William? You keep throwing these unfounded claims around that assume what you are trying to prove.
In any case, it’s demonstrably wrong. People are every bit as hypocritical about their moral standards on theism as on atheism. There is just as much crime, misery and suffering in predominantly theistic societies, as there are in atheistic ones. In fact statistics show high religiosity is usually correlates with higher frequencies of crime and so on.
So your strawman atheist has abandoned logic and reason.
I can make such a strawman theist too, who is impervious to logic and doesn’t care about reason.
Neither theism nor atheism has a solution to people who don’t care about logic and reason. They simply cannot be reasonably dealt with, so theism solves nothing here.
Of course there is a why, that’s what theists keep telling us. There’s always a “why”. You think you have emotions for no reason?
And why is your personal revulsion at other people’s actions, which don’t affect you if you simple abstain from them, being used as grounds for moral judgements?
Do you get offended if other people take a dump too? Surely you find feces repulsive.
Or does your hypothetical strawman atheist have an endless supply of irrationally and baselessly held sentiments?
Why? Just for no reason, other than to make up a nonsensical hypothetical atheist who doesn’t care about reason and logic?
Yes. For example, a moral system centered on “do unto others what you would have them do unto you” and “don’t do to others what you would not have them do to you”.
I can objectively show that such a moral system, if adhered to by a significant majority, leads to more wellbeing and less suffering, than yours.
Does your hypothetical atheist value his own and other people wellbeing? If not, how would theism solve it? If his own and other people’s wellbeing is of no importance to him, he won’t care about heavenly reward or hellish punishment, for himself or others.
Why? And why should that matter? You can choose to think about other stuff than other people’s sex lives. How about you contemplate your own and get a partner to have the kind of sex with you and her find pleasing?
Why?
Yes, look above.
Why?
Why?
Yes, you have not supplied any reasons for your revulsions, and you refuse to even consider them. Also, your strawman atheist apparently has no respect for logic and reason, he is impervious to logical argumentation by design. This is not a shortcoming of atheism, but with your design.
Because their well-being affects your own.
Why should you care if you don’t? How do you imagine theism solves a problem defined such that the person just doesn’t care no matter what, and only sees everything in terms of his personal material gains? That seems to be a question to which no answer is possible under any system. We can’t make people care unless they’re open and willing to. All we can do, whether on theism or atheism, is to try to appeal to other people’s empathy and emotions, or try to show them how their actions do actually affect their surroundings. And if possible, try to catch such egotistical individuals and punish them/prevent them from continuing to exploit the system.
If you have defined your situation in such a way that your hypothetical atheist is a sociopath who always gets away with it, then that’s about it. That’s how you’ve defined your situation. We could just as well make up such a situation on theism, about a person who doesn’t care about society or god, and just wants to accrue personal wealth and power. Or a delusional person who thinks he acts with gods blessing and authority, who thereby gives himself permission to exploit the surrounding society because he’s been “chosen” or is somehow deserving in the eyes of god.
Sorry, atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Get over it.
The values of western societies significantly predate christianity, and are mostly formed arround ancient greek philosophical ideas.
No Blas, you claimed that atheistic moral systems are irrational whether god exists or not. You make the claim, you support it.
Give your argument, lay out the premises and derive your conclusion.
Yes, those are both good points.
There are many ideas on what should count as consequences in this SEP article if you are interested.
On the Stalin issue: Not moral decisions because part of applying any moral system has to be principled reasoning in a moral community which has rules including: free, principled discussion; logic; use of basic moral principles compatible with human worth; understanding of the human animal as given both by science and philosophy. So I don’t think dictators can make moral decisions.
TSZ has gone through the issues in this thread many times even in the short time I have read the forum. For me, WJM usually “wins” the arguments because people don’t address his basic points but instead try to point fingers at religion. For my world view, I find KN’s arguments given in a different thread helpful. I linked to his posts in my earlier one here.
ETA: A question for you: how is it different for a theist? We cannot have first hand knowledge of what God would want. And I don’t see how we can depend solely on a personal, divine sense of what God wants, since equally-pious, religious people have differed in what it says to them. So doesn’t a theist have to go through the same moral reasoning process?
JT,
Yeah, we love a morality debate. It’s always the same one, but … 😉
It’s a shame you thought that – opposing views are more than welcome, and I think most people would be strongly resistant to any censorship, beyond spam, porn or the excessively personal.
William J. Murray,
If it harms another, I would call it immoral, and would attempt by any means at my disposal to intervene, because inaction would not sit well with my standards. Homosexuality of itself does not harm participants, therefore I don’t see it as a moral question at all. Although it does seem to exercise a fundamental sense of distaste in heterosexuals. And vice versa, I’d suggest, though there is a spectrum. I share that sense of distaste over the act, but if I were invited to a gay wedding, I would be honoured to attend. People need relationships for fulfillment. I’m all for fulfillment, if it harms no-one.
William J. Murray,
FFS! You asked me to make an argument, so I gave it a shot!
Indeed. From the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on atheism: “Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.”
With respect to JT’s original post, that page links to the Secular Morality page, which demonstrates that knowing only that someone is an atheist tells you nothing about his or her moral positions.
ETA: From Google’s online dictionary:
a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm
noun
1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.