Posted by
JCE
Last month a delightful article by Ben Shaprio pontificated on why atheism is morally bankrupt. His reasoning was simple:
There’s only one problem: without God, there can be no moral choice. Without God, there is no capacity for free will.Sadly for Mr. Shaprio this reasoning is wrong - millions of people are considered to have excellent morals without god and since the concept of free will is derived specifically from religion it does not apply to the issue of atheism.
On the other hand, it does beg the question as to why Christians and all other religious people are ethically bankrupt. Take any week in the news and you are bound to find numerous stories of religious committing crimes. Some of these crimes are vile, some are nuisance and some are downright odd but all of them are crimes, which makes them ethical violations.
For the purposes of this article I specifically chose the word ethics because the religious seem to have garnered a special hold on the word morals although no such mention to religion is included in the definition of either word. Linguistic evolution has deemed morals to come from biblical text and ethics from society. While both can produce equally good results, only one of them actually requires conscious thought to produce desired results.
Adherents to religion will claim moral high ground meaning they have received their instructions for behavior and consequences be damned they will abide by them. Their behavior often tramples on the rights of those around them as they seek the holy grail of approval from their master. Their doctrine of free will and operating on some kind of bizarre honor system in which they will be “punished” upon death leaves open a flood gate of shamefully unethical behavior affecting those who are forced to endure time with them during their life.
Reprehensible behavior becomes morally acceptable and absolved once they confess but the matter of ethics is never once addressed. Raping a child is never ethically acceptable. The Catholic Church, however, considers that to be a forgivable sin if only the right words of confession and promises to stop are made. Not quite good enough.
Morality is a distinctly poor system of judging character because it demands no accountability, no true responsibility for ones actions. Reading a holy text and interpreting it in order to develop a code of moral behavior creates an open system in which ALL behavior becomes acceptable. Ethics is a system that requires full accountability and there are consequences for ones actions. Consequences that may save lives or prevent the loss of innocence in another child.
So religion can keep their ‘moral’ instruction and claims of free will. I will keep my ethics and know that I am doing the right thing, that I respect the rights of others and want to benefit society and that I am accountable here and now for my actions.
Remember kids: "Morals are, in the light of reality, ethically bankrupt."
147 comments:
I think you completely misunderstood Ben Shaprio's article. His main point isn't that atheists are morally inferior; it's that they're logically inferior.
He's trying to say that atheists--based on their own, materialist presumptions--cannot LOGICALLY justify the existence of free will. I of course use the word "materialist" in the ontological sense (i.e. that nothing exists besides forms of matter).
He's saying that, without the possibility of "soul," (or something else that can constitute "me" that isn't just my body)then you can't postulate anything like freedom--since, without it, all "we" are is the result of pre-determined atomic/chemical interactions. As such, I can't say that you ought to act in any sort of way, since you really have no free choice in the matter at all. Any experience you or I have of "choice" is an illusion caused by the chemical reactions in my brain.
So I guess that: if we're determined by our atomic/chemical makeup; and we have an experience of freedom; "freedom" is an illusion. Why buy into the illusion and try to be moral if we know that everything is determined mathematically?
To say that we're free, if everything's determined, sounds like wishful thinking to me--not like reason.
pwned
or, more likely - to the above comment: yhbtyhl
All systems of belief also have sets of values which are usually called one's "ethic" or "morality". Because no human being is without beliefs and values of some sort, no human being is without an ethic or morality, hence, "believers are ethically bankrupt" is wrong. It follows that so-called "atheists" also are not without values and thus no without an ethic or morality. Values are inescapable in that in each and every moment of our lives we are presented by choices. There are certain indisputable facts about life and what it takes to keep it. One must make choices depending on what is one's ultimate goal - continued life or an end to it. You must make choices one way or another and you must form personal values to do it. Of course, one's values are either supported by accurate observation and consistently logical reasoning ... or they are not. Regardless, you still have values.
As to "free will", it is not "specifically derived from religion" as you say. There has been a long-standing debate over the question of whether the universe is deterministic or whether humanity has free will to decide for itself its future. This is a philosophical debate rather than a religious one and, as far as I'm concerned, was resolved quite some time ago and perhaps before Francis Bacon made his comment - "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." In other words, humanity has free will within a deterministic existence. We can do as we like within a certain set of natural laws that are quite unbreakable.
On the matter of "moral crimes", every set of values have potential individual choices that will violate them and choices that are in sync with those values. Without dipping into the debate over which set of values is thoroughly consistent with fact and logic and which are not, let's say that there are choices that are "criminal" and choices that are not for every set of values regardless of their particular rationality. In other words, in one set of values, murdering another human being is seen as a crime. In another set of values, perhaps one's where the lives of other human beings are expendable, to show excessive mercy toward others is a moral crime in that it violates your values. One ought to take care in branding certain actions "reprehensible" as though they are universally reprehensible without accounting for the fact that in certain value sets they are not. To say, "raping a child is never ethically acceptable" without adding the clarification - "within my values" is to ignore the inappropriateness of using the word "never" when there is little doubt, in some sets of values, raping a child IS morally acceptable. Granted, one has to have lost almost all capacity for reason to do so but, even the entirely irrational have sets of values and therefore ethical standards they follow in contrast to those followed by the more rational among us.
All in all, it is impossible for a human being to be "morally bankrupt", however, one can be entirely intellectually dysfunctional. That dysfunction leads to values or ethics that leave many in confounded as to how a human life could go so horribly wrong.
Sorry dude but Atheists are stupid, plain and simple. I highly recommend the Holy Bible! Its good for the soul!
RT
www.privacy-web.us.tc
nice article but you lose points for incorrect use of "begs the question" :(
I got this when I tried to post:
ERROR:
bX-gr6rtz
it said for me to report it.
To me it is hard to imagine anyone policing themselves without believing in a higher authority in place of Justice!
If true then Shapiro must of thought of this as the base for his comment.
I am not fund of organized anything specially religion since it is a private thing but just like the media, some one has to spread the news/message so that others will know. I know its always over-done! But everyone has to have the rights to choose for themselves.
i don't see how religions can allow free will in any way. most posit an all powerful, all knowing, god. if such a being existed, he should be able to tell me, in advance, everything i am ever going to do in my entire life. if he can't then he's not all knowing; if he can then where's my free will?
Hi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
learn how to use "beg the question" properly.
Who is more morally bankrupt? Someone who does good by others for fear of punishment by a higher power, or someone who does good deeds to promote the good of the community and create a stable society?
JoshyMinor : "Sorry dude but Atheists are stupid, plain and simple. I highly recommend the Holy Bible! Its good for the soul!"
Wow, Joshy, great example of one following the way of the bible: Calling names and demeaning others. Your savior would be so proud!
Not many laws have Christians breaking one (ethics) to satisfy the other (morals). Many of today's ethical guidelines are based on moral principals, so it's possible to be both ethical and moral. If you don't believe in morality, then striving for ethical behavior is a fine goal; you might even be mistaken as a good and moral person even if you don't believe in your own morality.
To those defending the Bible as the seat of moral virtue, I suggest a look at history's most heinous acts and how they have religion at their root.
To those who claim that moral ethics don't exist outside a religious context, i suggest you read up on Zen and other "Eastern" philosophy systems.
The only "religion" that truly practices inclusion, non-judgmental kindness, and non-violence is Buddhism. All other religions are exclusionary and fall far short of the principle "practice what you preach" - unless they choose only those passages which support narrow misinterpretation.
I am a non practicing person with a deep respect for all life. This comes from empathy toward all living creatures and the Earth that sustains us. I need no narrowly defined deity to recognize what is right and wrong or kind and unkind.
If "religion" were less isolationist and judgmental, they might have a chance of reaching the lofty goal they proclaim is their rightful perch.
Read, learn, study. Expand your mind and you will find out that religion is a very narrow, self-righteous, and far too often delusional path that treads on its own goodness through strict dogma.
sounds more like a thesis-filled rant than a persuasive argument. too many broad sweeping generalized stabs at religion.
You don't need a big brother in the sky to tell you what is ethical, you learn that while growing up by experience and trial/error. And logically, if God gives you free will then he doesn't force ethics upon you at all. This argument is bunk, there are good people and bad people - and a whole bunch in in between. God doesn't dictate this, its the indivual whom does. SNAP!
Religion answers riddles with conundrums. Arguing that we can't have free will without having souls, is a non-answer, as it still fails to deliver any answer as to how any action or idea is 'booted.' Claiming free will comes from God, fails to answer how God self-actuates.
We are more than a linear series of chemical reactions. We are many occurring at once. We are able to provide feedback to ourselves and modify these reactions. We keep memories, some close, some distant; all of them affect us.
It is unclear how we think. Our brains are unable to truly explain it; yet, as we ponder this riddle, we are doing the very thing we fail to understand!
Just because we fail to fully understand our own consciousness, does not justify creating an all-powerful entity we also do not understand.
What we do know is that we are here, that we are able to act this way. As a result, the evidence does not point towards God, but towards ourselves.
My issue with athiests having morals is where do the morals come from? With believers we have a guide, a code found in the scripture. What is the athiests guide?
If we base it on nature, or an inner moral compass, everyones "morals" would be different. The sense of right and wrong has to come from somewhere.
Most athiests I run into tell me that their "morality" is to do their best not to harm their neighbor. But this is the very base of Christian morality. They don't know it, but they are following Christ.
While I agree with your point, I'd also like to point out that religious committing crimes is not the same as religious violating ethics. Many laws are themselves unethical.
Interesting perspective. However, this is what I'll call 'cherry-picking'. In this sense, I'm referring to how religious groups are more or less singled out on 'moral' grounds. Do people make mistakes? They clearly do! Are people with religious beliefs any less or more human than people without? Certainly not!
The example of child rape was given earlier. First, child molestation of any sort is atrocious. Is it any less atrocious if someone not part of a religion is responsible? My take on these religious types is their hope (and in many cases, desire) to live in a manner that would show better morals (or ethics, if you will) than the 'average Joe'. Yet, let's be realistic. They're just as human as the rest of us, and as such, are liable to make the same mistakes as the rest of us--even the terrible ones. The kicker of a question is this: How do we handle those mistakes? Again, realism comes knocking when a person who proclaims themselves religious is discovered in such an atrocity because their credibility is gone. They have to rebuild that from scratch--assuming they can rebuild it at all. Another question, even after this action are they still entitled the same human rights as the rest of us?
@joshyMinor
The Bible
The Bible!!!!!
You're the idiot. People like you push Intelligent design down the throats of children, demonize Science (and rational thought) and want to turn modern society into a Theocracy. I don't care if you worship Allah, Jesus, Jehovah or Yahweh. Just as you have a right to believe, we have the right not to believe. So go back to your virginity promise rings, and virgin Mary toast and let the adults discuss the article, both believers and non-believers.
Recently my brother has been converted the Church of latter day saints. They have convinced his Musically talented mind that he should not pursue his music as it is taking him down the wrong path.
I am sad for him, as he is so talented, I could sit in a room and ask him to play anything I could think of and he can. His church thinks this is bad. And that he should be going on a mission to brainwash others.
Religion is Mind control. I dont need to be pressed with fears of eternal damnation to know what is right and wrong. Religion kills so many in the name of GOD.
G OLD O IL D RUGS that is the real power behind our society.
The Vatican is responsible for many wrongs in our history, but religious freaks will over look the past and justify their future actions with a story book.
I have free will and I do not believe in GOD.
Keep believing in the story books sheeple.
"since, without it, all "we" are is the result of pre-determined atomic/chemical interactions"
You don't give these things enough credit. "Pre-determined" I like how you throw this word in there, as if it's supposed to suffice for the intricacy and complexity of the things you're talking about, which it doesn't... at all...
And I'm afraid you give humans too much credit. The more you understand about life on this planet (by learning about the sciences), the more you begin to see how trivial all your worries and concerns are, and that all life is 'sacred', not just humans, and that all belief systems are quite natural things for humans to partake in. And hopefully by that point you see how silly the Abrahamic religions are. Their pattern of dropping beliefs as soon as technology advances beyond them is pretty telling.
That's not to say that humans aren't special and that you are not special, but in the bigger picture of life we are no more special than the water we drink or the air we breathe, or the animals we eat, or the rocks we sit on, or the grass we run through.
Both authors are overgeneralizing. For those who have the ability to understand how societies work, there is no need for threat of spiritual punishment to keep one's actions moral. On the other hand, believing that the mere fact that one has religious convictions makes them "morally bankrupt" is insulting in the extreme.
There will never be a common ground for discussion between the religious and the areligious with falsely-confident shotgun blasts like this.
The Urantia Book:
"Do not overlook the value of your spiritual heritage, the river of truth running down through the centuries, even to the barren times of a materialistic and secular age. In all your worthy efforts to rid yourselves of the superstitious creeds of past ages, make sure that you hold fast the eternal truth. But be patient! when the present superstition revolt is over, the truths of Jesus' gospel will persist gloriously to illuminate a new and better way.
But paganized and socialized Christianity stands in need of new contact with the uncompromised teachings of Jesus; it languishes for lack of a new vision of the Master's life on earth. A new and fuller revelation of the religion of Jesus is destined to conquer an empire of materialistic secularism and to overthrow a world sway of mechanistic naturalism. Urantia is now quivering on the very brink of one of its most amazing and enthralling epochs of social readjustment, moral quickening, and spiritual enlightenment.
The teachings of Jesus, even though greatly modified, survived the mystery cults of their birthtime, the ignorance and superstition of the dark ages, and are even now slowly triumphing over the materialism, mechanism, and secularism of the twentieth century. And such times of great testing and threatened defeat are always times of great revelation.
Religion does need new leaders, spiritual men and women who will dare to depend solely on Jesus and his incomparable teachings. If Christianity persists in neglecting its spiritual mission while it continues to busy itself with social and material problems, the spiritual renaissance must await the coming of these new teachers of Jesus' religion who will be exclusively devoted to the spiritual regeneration of men. And then will these spirit-born souls quickly supply the
Page 2083 leadership and inspiration requisite for the social, moral, economic, and political reorganization of the world.
The modern age will refuse to accept a religion which is inconsistent with facts and out of harmony with its highest conceptions of truth, beauty, and goodness. The hour is striking for a rediscovery of the true and original foundations of present-day distorted and compromised Christianity--the real life and teachings of Jesus.
Primitive man lived a life of superstitious bondage to religious fear. Modern, civilized men dread the thought of falling under the dominance of strong religious convictions. Thinking man has always feared to be held by a religion. When a strong and moving religion threatens to dominate him, he invariably tries to rationalize, traditionalize, and institutionalize it, thereby hoping to gain control of it. By such procedure, even a revealed religion becomes man-made and man-dominated. Modern men and women of intelligence evade the religion of Jesus because of their fears of what it will do to them--and with them. And all such fears are well founded. The religion of Jesus does, indeed, dominate and transform its believers, demanding that men dedicate their lives to seeking for a knowledge of the will of the Father in heaven and requiring that the energies of living be consecrated to the unselfish service of the brotherhood of man.
Selfish men and women simply will not pay such a price for even the greatest spiritual treasure ever offered mortal man. Only when man has become sufficiently disillusioned by the sorrowful disappointments attendant upon the foolish and deceptive pursuits of selfishness, and subsequent to the discovery of the barrenness of formalized religion, will he be disposed to turn wholeheartedly to the gospel of the kingdom, the religion of Jesus of Nazareth.
The world needs more firsthand religion. Even Christianity--the best of the religions of the twentieth century--is not only a religion about Jesus, but it is so largely one which men experience secondhand. They take their religion wholly as handed down by their accepted religious teachers. What an awakening the world would experience if it could only see Jesus as he really lived on earth and know, firsthand, his life-giving teachings! Descriptive words of things beautiful cannot thrill like the sight thereof, neither can creedal words inspire men's souls like the experience of knowing the presence of God. But expectant faith will ever keep the hope-door of man's soul open for the entrance of the eternal spiritual realities of the divine values of the worlds beyond.
Christianity has dared to lower its ideals before the challenge of human greed, war-madness, and the lust for power; but the religion of Jesus stands as the unsullied and transcendent spiritual summons, calling to the best there is in man to rise above all these legacies of animal evolution and, by grace, attain the moral heights of true human destiny.
Christianity is threatened by slow death from formalism, overorganization, intellectualism, and other nonspiritual trends. The modern Christian church is not such a brotherhood of dynamic believers as Jesus commissioned continuously to effect the spiritual transformation of successive generations of mankind.
So-called Christianity has become a social and cultural movement as well as a religious belief and practice. The stream of modern Christianity drains many an ancient pagan swamp and many a barbarian morass; many olden cultural watersheds drain into this present-day cultural stream as well as the high Galilean tablelands which are supposed to be its exclusive source."
Laxarus
Analogia,
I am sorry to say that your comment sounds completely ridiculous. It seems that by your logic, free will must be given by some higher power, rather than the simple result of random chance.
There in lies the source of our freedom and free will. Not a "pre-determined" collection of atoms/chemical reactions. The simple fact that we are a random collection of atoms and chemicals, and our reactions and existence are a result of this collection in no way demands pre-determination. In fact, pre-determination means there must be some agent, a creator, that willed our existence, and is completely contradictory to atheism.
At no point can pre-determination be associated with atheism, so please reconsider your argument.
We're only here by chance, right atheists? So what would be the point of caring for others when everything is going to end someday and we just vanish. No afterlife would mean no valid, intellectual reason for doing anything worthwhile for someone other than yourself without the hopes of them doing something for you in return. What kind of a place would this world be if everyone thought like that?
with gods word in our lives regardless if he is there we will still be doing something good and not just for ourselves but others. those that do not believe need to they are running a huge risk that isnt worth it! Plus with god in my live its something that cant be put into words alone thats how awesome it is!!
JCE, for someone who is trying to sound smart you aren't doing a very good job. Your article has no purpose at all but to totalize any belief in a higher being/ having morality into the catholic church. If you are going to make an argument, please refrain from using fallacies. Just a question for you as well. If society had no law prohibiting murder/rape/etc and it was socially acceptable, then what tells you that killing a man is wrong? Morality. God dictates morality, which is why you have a sense of it (including athiests),
why would an atheist need to justify free will at all?
i do what i want with no fear of a god. I dont rape and kill becasue it's not good for society. i dont get off on the suffering of others, therefore if i see it i try to help.
these are simple concepts that exist with the vast majority of us.
we are and always have been pack animals doing whats good for the pack is our instinct. those whos instincts are miswired are ostracized or killed just like in nature.
I think the ethics are more based on nurture. Through the ages we have gone through many ethical changes. You don't have to follow Christ to know right from wrong. You just have to live in society. There are tribes out there that still practice cannibalism and this is ethically acceptable to them. however to most people, "god fearing" or not, that is not acceptable. You do not need a book to tell you right from wrong.
This article makes my balls itch.
Actually, you are right. Most of the people that claim to be Christians aren't. That is why Jesus will say to so many who prayed in and claimed His name in that day, "Depart from me you workers of iniquity, I knew you not."
I was an athiest like you when I was introduced to the sermons of William Marrion Branham. I heard "Jezebel Religion" and the Lord God called my soul. He was send by God to prepare a Bride for Christ.
Although many consider this particluar sermon to be "too hard" for unbelievers, it is what God used to reveal his end-time Word to me. If you were with Him before the foundation of the world, and are also going back to him, I trust you will hear the Voice too:
http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=748
It is a wonderful feeling to know that God has already forgiven those whom he calls - and the revelation that you are being called to.
May God richly bless you,
Sister Kim
You are a fucking psycho.
-Burle Haggard
Asking the religious people to deal with issues of logic is like asking a blind person to fly a helicopter.
Free will is an illusion in any system of belief that has an omnipotent being at it's core.
Think about it.
Good discussion. Just to toss one more item into the mix, orthodox Buddhists of the Theravadan, Mahayanan and Vajrayanan paths (the three major schools of Buddhism in the world today) have no belief in the soul, nor any particular concept of a god or gods. Yet they are accepted by many other religious groups as decent, moral people with high ethics and standards of behavior.
On to free will. Mr. Shapiro is correct in that, ontologically speaking, you can't have "free will"-- and therefore, moral choice-- without the notion of soul or self. But in a world where people of all beliefs are faced with ethical/moral decisions every day, is that distinction-- the fiction of "free will" really meaningful?
A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows. - Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)
If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul.
- Isaac Asimov
what about ants? have you ever looked at people from a sky scraper? I havnt, but people look like ants from high up. All the complex interactions that ant-like human have from above seem to simplify into task like behaviors to procure food, shelter, procreate and a desire to be equal or different, thus escalate the the hierarchies set by society; even insight into our nature and a conscient will to evolve seem insignificant from above.
Individual ants don't seem to have the cognitive capability to produce the array of actions an ant colony carries out, but the collective behavior does. Doesn't this collective behavior assimilate to a godly omnipotence of the multitude? Isn't morality an expression of an objective attitude of the individual to the 'other' or the 'rest'? If the individual is subjective and morality an objective interpretation of individual behaviors towards co-existence, then the creation of God seems to be a possible origin to this objectivity, a being beyond human that can objectively interpret our modes of individuality and collectivity. So God exists in that it represents this objectivity. But having acquired this ordeal, served its purpose, the power to coexist should be handed on to humans themselves. If ants can carry the weight of belonging to a functional collective, cant we?
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
- Steven Weinberg
If God knows all then free will does not exist.
In Atheist-land, even if everything is predetermined it is too complex to call, so...
@Dusten
We're only here by chance, right atheists?
Right, so far.
No afterlife would mean no valid, intellectual reason for doing anything worthwhile for someone other than yourself without the hopes of them doing something for you in return
No valid, intellectual reason for doing anything worthwhile? This is why the religious are ethically bankrupt, my dear child.
You do good by others only for the selfish desires of having the same returned to you upon death. Atheists do good by others, because it's the right thing to do. Your ethics, and morals are predetermined by your religion, changing only at the will of your priest; our ethics come from wanting to do good for those around us, and those we care about, and for their benefit, not our own.
So i ask you; what kind of a place would this be if everyone was ethically, and morally good simply because it's the right thing to do, rather than for fear of eternal damnation?
What kind of a place indeed.
Thank you for all of your suggestions and recommendations to read The Bible. I cannot seem to find The Bible, or "Holy Bible", in it's unabridged form. It seems to have been changed by various religious entities over the centuries along with a multitude of language translation mistakes. Therefore I have decided not to read your suggested piece of fiction literature known as "The Bible".
You are making a subjective argument. Why would an atheist care about morality so much as religious people do? maybe because an atheist seeks approval in this religious world.
But the bottom line is this, religious people, christian in particular, see their moral bankruptcy, and atheists dont. Morality has little to do with inner state and more to do with your life; your deeds; your actions. And since atheism doesnt have anything in its doctrine that says "love your neighbor as they self" or "be a good samaritan", they have no obligation to be moral. In fact that is why atheism is useless when it comes to charity -- helping the poor, sending aid, being their first in the moment of crisis. Most people in the world don't care about evolution and the question ofGgod when they're hungry, and sadly apart from evolution and alternative philosophy atheism has nothing to offer.
No one can provide a logical basis stating that Christianity above all other religions (also wrong) is truth. Nothing proves or even reasonably suggests that Jesus is the son of God. A reference to the Bible proves nothing other than your foolishness.
Now I know you stated why you choose to use moral and ethical the way you did, it does make it a bit easier to read, but I must state I find this separation annoying if not downright frustrating. Maybe its because I'm opinionated and stubborn, but if something was the right thing to do and you did it, who cares? I think my favorite saying in this was some supreme court judge whose name leaves me at the moment, but it goes like this "I'll know it when I see it." Seems a fairly straight forward way of dealing with stuff.
As long as your way of life doesn't interfere or harm others, why should anyone have the right to judge it? Live and let live I say.
And to all the Bible believing bunch, do me a favor. Go back, read the whole New Testament front to back without stopping. Okay now that you have done that ask yourself this question, if these words really did come from God, what would he rather you do... spend your time going out and telling people their way of life is wrong and corrupt OR living your life and when the time comes forgiving everyone for their honest mistakes? God forgave some his worst enemies for doing unspeakable things, whose right is it that we/you judge anyone? It isn't ours at all, its His. The moral of it (yeah I know puntastic but I couldn't resist) is to be good people for the sake of being good. Forgive those that try to make amends and those truly unrepentant let God sort them out. Its not your job to do it for God.
Now to the Atheists out there, can you please stop thumbing your nose at everyone that says they believe in God/god/gods/etc? Most of the time Atheist arguments end in taters because for some unknown reason most of the time you've just got to prove them wrong. Lets give an example with some simpler things, like favorite TV show. You like (choosing this just for the heck of it) Lost, now you have a friend that every time you mention you like Lost they have to go and spend 20-50 minutes trying to PROVE to you that the show just sucks. I mean to the point its all they do. How long would you still be fiends/talk to them? I'm willing to be not very. This is similar just on a much bigger subject.
There is more than enough room for both thoughts on life, so for the sake of us Agnostics/Fence Riders can we at least get you guys/gals to act civilly around each other? This whole bicker back and forth all the time just makes it seem like your in a elementary school yelling back and forth "Well my Dad beats up your dad" and "No my Dad totally beats up your Dad hands down."
Why would an atheist care about morality so much as religious people do? maybe because an atheist seeks approval in this religious world.
No, because atheists believe in being good people, for no other reason than to be a good person. Why is that religious zealots --such as yourself-- seem to feel so morally superior, when you out right admit that were it not for fear of eternal damnation, you would not be a moral, upstanding member of society.
Atheists, just as the religious, can be good, or bad. Atheists don't hide behind dogma or narrow interpretations of a made up book of fiction in a thinly veiled attempt to justify the wrong they do against their fellow humans.
Atheism does not have doctrine, we do not need a book to tell us how to be good people; to tell us the difference between right and wrong. We all --as members of society-- know what is right, and what is wrong. If you do indeed lack the ability to differentiate, save for what is told to you by your fairy tales, than i feel bad for you, and suggest that maybe you should seek help in correcting this mental deficiency you seem to be struggling with.
It's all about survival. Does anyone here know anything? Communities are more efficient. Morality comes from extremely complex mutually beneficial relationships. In general atheists are just as ignorant as theists. If you understand basic evolution theory please learn to integrate it into your thinking.
I think many of you are taking this issue way out on unnecessary limbs. The simple fact is that religion is not in any way required to possess a moral/ethical system because any moral system only requires empathy to be able to know right from wrong. To be able to feel the emotions of another is the basis of all moral structures.
It is revealing that almost all Christians believe that the Bible's morals (i.e. ten commandments) were original. Christian morals are a condensation of moral guidelines from much older religions, i.e. Egyptian. Aborignal tribes all around the world had ethics and law long before contact with the white man. Morality's origin is obvious: it is discovered behaviour and conduct that allows a society to flourish. Mankind had 150,000 years to figure it out through trial and error. But don't expect believers to come to their senses. For emotional or narcissitic reasons, they need to have a father in heaven.
Concerning why religious people do criminal things, firstly, it must be determined if what is deemed criminal contradicts the ethical code of the individuals religion. If one posits that all criminal activity is wrong, then one is really saying that the rule of law should always supercede the religious rule. It should be obvious that the rule of law is not always right. Stalin made laws. Hitler made laws. Laws are not necessarily good or bad laws because a certain person made them, but this illustrates that what most now consider a "bad" person made laws and these laws should be suspect. Since governmental laws are made by people, and people are imperfect, all laws should be scrutinized. However, without any truly external, objective perspective, judging between the two different rule sets is not possible. There is only the question of who has the power to enforce their rule.
Second is whether the religious person in question is actually following their religion's rule in order to break a law or whether the religious person is breaking a religious rule as well as breaking the law. That is, is the person being consistent with the teachings or is that person in violation. Again, if you have no final authority, claiming a religious person (who is within their religious laws) is wrong to do something has no basis. It may be illegal. It may seem irrational. It may even be defined as "harmful" (whatever that may mean within any specific context). But it cannot be judged without a final authority.
That finally leaves the inconsistent religious person who is not only a criminal, but is even wrong according to his own standard. It would be interesting to see what the comparisons would be amongst religious and "non-religious" persons concerning crime. As it seems that a super majority of persons on the Earth believe in some form of higher deity, it would be unfair to have straight comparisons. A better comparison would be per capita. If "JCE" sees too many religious criminals, it may be that this is due to religions' popularity--not failure. As in any argument, there are always those on your side you wish were on the other, but I would venture to guess that the amount of good religion has done goes unnoticed. People want religion to provide instant fixes to personal problems that took lifetimes to create and that generally doesn't happen. People also refuse to apply religion evenly to their entire lives, so that what may pass as a devout person, is in fact devout in only a few externally visible areas. But, considering the "raw material" of your average convert, I believe religion would be sorely missed if it was ever truly eradicated. True religion takes what you are and makes you better. From this perspective, it may be fair to ask why the atheist or agnostic aren't better than just "not criminals". Is life's goal really to avoid criminal activity but otherwise do what you want? If atheists start out with above average raw material such as rational and critical thinking, why aren't they significantly better than their religious counterparts instead of pretty much the same?
Nice discussion. I like what Analogia said about about freedom being an illusion.
With quantum mechanics, physical processes might not be quite as predictable as Analogia suggests.
But that said, as an atheist I really have no problem with the idea that freedom is an illusion. Why fight it?
It may be an illusion, but it's a damn good one. If you were to actually try to predict the output of the human brain from moment to moment, much less from day to day, I think you will find that it is quite impossible... it is just too complex.
So you can hypothesize that actions can be predicted in some philosophical sense, but the reality is that they can not be.
Beyond this, one can also speculate that the human brain functions in a way that actually imposes this illusion of free-will upon us. Or to put it another way, complex free-will (or the illusion of it) emerges from the simplicity of neurons firing.
There are so many rhetorical errors in the majority of these comments I could hardly stand to read through them. Using "ethics" and "morals" as synonyms for each other is a recent trend started by sloppy, lazy philosophers and theologians. Their roots are different, and "morals" are based off of "ethics." Towards the top: "begging the question" is something all of us should learn about. It is a very common fallacy that allows it's user to gain control of an argument. We need to stop this from happening. Ontology, as it relates to quantum mechanics: It is not the series of molecular patterns that prevents us from having free will. It is rather the free will that determines the series of molecular patterns. Organized religion: This was one of the greatest ideas ever! It is the best way to control a people, and a bad excuse to be a good person. Gold Oil Drugs: That was good.
Surely Shapiro is either revealing his lack of understanding or, more likely, deliberately misunderstanding to support his point.
The materialist position may state that that there is no 'soul' as our consciousness is 'merely' and effect of our biology, but it does not necessarily follow that our actions are predetermined "down to the moment when Joe Biden will pick his nose". It may, but that is a much a matter for philosophy as to whether the Christian view of god's plan actually allows any room for so-called free will.
Even if our minds are 'simply' the product of our genetics and environment, the variables are so vast as to make us unique, complex individuals without the need for a divine spark.
In my opinion, the world is 'soul-less', because there is no such thing as a soul. this does not mean the world is without conscience. We intelligent beings have that capacity and a responsibility to be the conscience for the rest of the universe that does not.
If you go here and listen to "What's so great about Christianity Part 2" it talks a lot about what is being discussed in this thread.
It is a sermon and the Pastor can be a little much for non-believers or Christians who are used to traditional speakers. I found it to be pretty interesting..just go into listening to it with an open mind.
Jo
oops..forgot the link. sorry!
http://www.evergreenccmedia.com/messages/results_loc.php
I havent even finished reading the article, and as a non-believer, I am sure i will agree with most of it. But I did want to point out that at the start you say because they are crimes they are ethical violations. Well, you certainly dont have to go very far back in time to understand there is a GREAT difference between Legal and Moral or Ethical. Take for example the Jim Crow laws. I would hate to have been considered immoral for letting a black person drink from my white drinking fountain.
Some freaky long haired peace and love pre-hippy said something about actions and words. Then, a bunch of people followed him and gave up actions in favor of spouting off words.
I am a non-Christian. From where do I get my moral compass? From common sense, common compassion.
Here are my deeds:
- Roughly 12% of annual income over past 3 years donated to post-conflict soldier charities.
- Instructed my family to give my birthday gifts to their favorite charity (been doing that since I was 21, two years after I abandonded God-fearing)
- Was 45 minutes late to work because I stopped to help a woman change her tire on the side of a freeway while cars with crosses and "Jesus Saves" bumper stickers blew by us.
- My daughter, on her own accord after watching something on Disney Channel, donated her hair to Locks of Love.
I don't know if you are morally bankrupt, but I do know that each-and-every believer that I have read has an utterly pervreted and twisted definition of morals and all that.
Here's a tip, put down your tomes and books, quit yelling at us for not doing it your way and go out and do something nice for someone.
...wow, we could really use some freaky long haired peace and love pre-hippy to spread that advice around...
Oh wait, you are the same people that would have put him on a cross for disagreeing with your tomes and whatever.
Anonymous said...
My issue with atheists having morals is where do the morals come from? With believers we have a guide, a code found in the scripture. What is the atheists guide?
The atheists guide is their own empathy. If someone close to me is killed I feel sadness and loss, therefore I amuse that if someone close to you is killed you will feel sadness and loss as well, I don't like feeling that way so why would you or anyone else like feeling like that. I wouldn't want this to happen to me so this leads me to form the belief that killing someone is not right. This is at least part of what forms peoples ethical guides.
Dusten said...
We're only here by chance, right atheists? So what would be the point of caring for others when everything is going to end someday and we just vanish. No afterlife would mean no valid, intellectual reason for doing anything worthwhile for someone other than yourself without the hopes of them doing something for you in return. What kind of a place would this world be if everyone thought like that?
....I am not even sure were the logic for this one comes from. Don't you feel good for doing something to help someone else or socity? I do. What other reason do you need to do something? Also Atheists don't nessisarily belive that "its all going to end someday" at least not someday within my lifetime, that's a religus belife. I belive and I think other atheists belive, this is all we get so we better make it good and worthwhile.
What makes people want to make the world a better place? Not the fear of or love from a higher being (although that may be some peoples motivation), its that we want to leave the world better then we found it for our children, and their children, and because it feels good.
We are not animals, we are people who can make choices. Now for some people the religious may have it right, there are people out there with no empathy, no ability to feel sympathy for their fellow man, but most people have this ability and that is why you can be ethical or moral or good or whatever you want to call it without religion.
golden rule. that's all you need. well, that and 3 seconds to look at this comic that sums things up nicely:
http://i36.tinypic.com/bzpyx.jpg
Yea, we could go listen to "What's so great about Christianity", or, we could go stab ourselves in the eye with a pitchfork, and lay sideways on the ground, listening to the sound of our blood as it fills our ear canal, then watch as it slowly begins to douse the ground around us in a warm blanket of satin.
Earlier, an anonomous commenter said
"To me it is hard to imagine anyone policing themselves without believing in a higher authority in place of Justice!"
As a non-believer, my higher authority is the law and the community at at large. I don't need an authority that transcends death to tell me whats right and wrong, I have every other person in the world to help me with that.
If you are truly confident in your religious belief you shouldn't need to accuse those who denounce religion of lacking free will, morals, or a code of ethics. Then again, the basis of most religions is incredibly narcissistic and self-oriented.
The social implications of organized religion definitely help create a curtain to mask self-doubt in those who pretty clearly don't entirely stand behind the system they apparently believe in.
In that, it doesn't take much inquiry to see the countless contradictions and outright errors before a person just decides whether they actually believe or just want to believe.
"Anonymous said...
To me it is hard to imagine anyone policing themselves without believing in a higher authority in place of Justice!"
So then the only reason that you are a 'good person' is because you fear being sentenced by God.
Somehow, that just seems wrong.
Whatever happened to being good for the sake of being good? Treating others how you would want them to treat you? Feeling a natural pleasure from contributing to someone's happiness?
Because that's why I act the way I do. I don't need to fear a God to act with kindness.
Most athiests I run into tell me that their "morality" is to do their best not to harm their neighbor. But this is the very base of Christian morality. They don't know it, but they are following Christ.
You are truly ignorant if you think that principle originated with Christianity.
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
To say that the only crimes that are committed are by the religious is like saying airplanes are way more dangerous than cars. People remember when a religious person commits a crime and it makes the news. No one remembers the vast amount of people who commit crimes for reasons other than 'God told them to'. Did Caylee die because God commanded it? There's your example out of a thousand that I could choose from.
Honestly, I get a giggle when the atheist sect try to actually promote themselves as open-minded, more so than their religious counterparts. Insults hurl in both directions, so please try not to make yourselves out to be the innocent, bloodied lamb, ok?
If everyone were to be intellectually honest about such matters, do you really believe it was God's Will that precipatated so mnay atrocities throughout history? No, it was man who committed those crimes, using God's Name as an excuse to do so. God isn't the problem here, mankind is.
I'm not here to bash religion, but when people question how there can be morality with a God threatening eternal punishment for transgressions, I get a little nuts. What about laws, and the rules of society? Both promise punishment if they are not followed and, with the exception of banning liquor sales on Sunday, can be traced back to perfectly logical societal needs for order.
Besides that, what if I WANT society to function properly? What if it pleases me to help the world go round? What if I believe that good should be done for its own sake, without threat from a higher power?
Please -- just because you can't understand my motivations doesn't mean they must be the same as yours.
Not a bad read, I am not sure I agree with everything said, but you at least got the ball rolling on some free thought.
people that posted things like "Atheists are stupid," are really missing the point that is trying to be made. Just because you are religious doesn't make you a good person, nor does being Atheist make you a bad person.
Whatever your beliefs are is a rather moot point, your actions dictate the type of person you are, not the religion you choose. If you are a serial killer, and you accept "god" and you kill for "god" that doesn't make you a good person. Especially since much of the bible as well as other established religions preach tolerance, acceptance, and understanding.
Also, just because you choose to believe in god, and Jesus Christ doesn't make you a good person, that is not the one thing that makes you a good person. An individual who follows the word of the bible, or whatever religious book they choose the get their teachings from is secondary in American culture. I am not saying that it is not important, but in a country that puts the State, before any church the people following those religious have to realize that their personal beliefs are secondary to what the majority has decided upon. You don't like it, go live some place else. There are also many people in this country who say they "follow the word of the lord." When in actuality all they practice is hypocrisy.
If you're going to believe it, live it. You don't get to pick and choose what works for you and doesn't in your religion. that is for the Atheists, and Agnostics, the people that are comfortable with the idea that there may not be someone looking down above us, making sure we are all doing "just dandy."
The basic premise of asking about free will vs. determinism is flawed, because it comes with the inherent assumption that we possess some matterless ethereal "soul" that is capable of making decisions. In actuality, the more scientists study the brain, the more areas of consciousness are ascribed to certain parts, and it's becoming increasingly obvious that every aspect of thought is derived from the arrangement and firing patterns of our neurons.
The second fault I find in the question is the definition of what exactly a "decision" is. A decision is a choice between two or more outcomes, arrived at by the weighing of various factors associated with each. Soul-ists posing the question seem to think that people "decide" based on NOTHING at all. This is NEVER the case! Our decisions are always based on something--if you choose mint chocolate chip icecream over cookies 'n' cream, it's probably because you like it more, it has less calories, you know you'll get a bigger scoop, or you haven't had it in a while and you crave the novelty. Try telling people to choose with only their soul--they'll fail every random number test every created miserably.
So to summarize what I've just said: the free will question is moot because 1) we cannot make decisions independently of our brains (there is nothing to make a decision), and 2) a decision is inherently deterministic by definition. "True" spontaneous behavior has yet to be shown, and I seriously, seriously doubt it ever well.
So if you want the pessimistic viewpoint that we are deterministic, so be it. I see determinism and free will as identical.
Free will or determinism. Wave or a particle. Which is it?
The answer is: "yes". Reality is quantum. It is both the same. Only the words we use are the problem.
"The process of non-thinking is faith." - Richard Dawkins
'nuff said.
I agree with Alejo's posts.
The inherent problem with your article, JCE, is that you've become the exact thing you rail against. By adopting the black-and-white, holier-than-thou (if you'll excuse the expression) stance you've taken, and especially by expressing it in such a woefully under-informed and simplistic fashion, you come across just as ignorant and self-righteous as the believers you seek to condemn.
As for your second error, I'll take the liberty to correct you: We believers are not all members of the Roman Catholic Church. We believers are not all simple-minded "sheeple" who take what we're given as face value. And, most importantly, not all of us have something against atheists.
I do admit my disdain for those who shove religion (or lack thereof) down peoples' throats. I believe that everyone's belief system is, ultimately, up to them. I fear the power the religious right has in US politics. But I also take great exception to being defined in an overly broad group of herd-mentality believers when such make up a minority of those with a belief in a deity.
So, for the sake of believers and non-believers all, try putting a little more forethought into an article before you decide to stereotype an entire group of people. It'll make your own case come across even stronger.
ah the circular thinking of the religious. its amazing what people will do so they don't have to think and take responsibility for their actions.
saying something like, 'without god how can one develop morals?' is the same as saying 'i didn't know i wanted not to be killed by someone until god told me i wanted that'.
morals don't appear divinely or in magic instructions. It's actually very simple but it requires thought.
Humans are born with desires and needs such need food, need shelter, want to not get hurt or killed by things in world. very simple ideas.
This is the tricky part, you have to think about another being in this world. put yourself in their situation and then say 'would this being want food, want shelter, want to not be hurt or killed by things in the world?'. You might even be able to ask it these questions if its another human.
then when you find that most, if not all, beings want/need these same core things you might try to setup an agreement between you and other beings of the world so everyone can enjoy these same ideals and help protect each other.
At this point you may want to define what these ideas are called, possibly naming them 'morals' or 'ethics'.
This is where we get these core ideas of equality and liberty for all. They don't come from somewhere magical, they come from us, our desires and needs as humans in this world.
The universe(possibly multiverse) we live in is amazing and full of unanswered questions.
I can only come to 2 reasons why people would want to create an entity they can never know or understand.
1) its a way for people to control other people through fear of the unknown that can never really be known.
2) its the easy way out for an individual who doesn't want to think about something they don't understand; whether that may be people or the universe.
put down the story book from 2000 years ago and start reading some science and history books published in the last 30 years. you will find infinitely more useful information. information that can be revised as new discoveries are obtained.
This takes a desire to understand, not ignore, the unknown. It takes effort and evidence, not blind faith. It means doing something yourself to make a change, not praying that some magic being will do it for you.
its hard to live in reality but you only hurt yourself by ignoring it.
Depla said: "In fact, pre-determination means there must be some agent, a creator, that willed our existence, and is completely contradictory to atheism."
This is so incredibly false I can't even begin to go into it. You desperately need to read Nietzsche, specifically the Twilight of the Idols.
Dusten, you seem to have a problem with enjoying the moment.
Try this: (1) buy some paints and a canvas and create a work of art (2) destroy it
Does destroying it take away the joy of painting? If so, why?
If you're not into art, try it with anything else that you enjoy. Do something you enjoy, then destroy whatever it is you accomplished.
If you can feel good about having accomplished something even after you destroy it, you may learn something. You might even start to understand the beauty of atheism.
Religion can keep their version of morality. I'll stick to my own.
The proof that a soul exists, and is capable of making decisions, can only really come from cases wherein a person decides, and acts, in a way that overrides the obvious programming of the mind and body. When a person decides to give his life selflessly to save a stranger. Every chemical reaction in the mind and body is such that the giving of ones own life is obviously anathema to it's own existence. But many have done this. We are then forced to ask...if the neither the mind or body have any physical inclination toward, or benefit from, complete selflessness, how is selflessness possible ?
It annoys me that the difference between morals and ethics is being blurred here.
puncturevine, apparently animals (bears even!) have souls too then because they are willing to put themselves in grave danger to defend their young. Wolves put themselves in danger to defend their pack. Wow, they have bigger souls than most humans!
lol. That is such a ridiculous argument that I could spend the whole day mocking it.
Your idea of how the brain works is just so completely WRONG that it is no wonder you come up with silly "proofs" like this. Hahaha.
Where do you get this idea that the brain is "programmed" to not be selfless? HAHAHA. I have to stop... you're going to make me burst from laughter.
Funny How I can agree with Laxarus' last criticisms of while aligning in totality against his early evaluations of it. Your logic is flawed and you fail in your fallacy by your weak first premise. You're making this all too complicated, people. Reality is a pretty simple if surreal experience. Christianity has been one of the most successful religions, though calling it 'the best' sold out your bias. Christianity no longer is equipped to handle modern life. Modern life means increasingly the many changes that occur in it, and no longer few that were so successfully driven during our fathers and grandfathers and their grandfathers time of and because of their religious principles. The dispute over calling No Quitsies on ethics vs. morality is also pulling at a straw man. Whatever the outcome, we should all agree that believing that man is under God is always. That should keep us humble.
Blu-ray Rocks!
Religion tries to explain why things are the way they are. There are many religions with many explanations. Atheism needs a better explanation-- one that doesn't need to be revised and re-interpreted with each new wave of scientific discovery.
Well, in response to Mr. Bennett's sadly juvenile post, what's wrong with the idea of animals having souls, too?
As far as puncturevine's post goes, I think it's necessary to sort of separate bears and wolves and people. According to our esteemed friend from Chicago, bears are defending their young. Well, this sounds like the simple Darwinian principle of maintaining one's presence in the gene pool. If the mother bear dies, but the cubs survive and reproduce, this carries on mother bear's genes. If, however, the cubs die and mother bear has no more, those genes fade away.
Similarly, wolf packs ensure the survival of the individual members. A pack that loses even one individual is less able to secure food, and the chances of survival lessen for the whole pack.
Humans, in the same way, could act in similar survival-based manner to save those in their direct social group (those who affect one's genetic survival). However, puncturevine specifically mentions saving a stranger. In a world with 6 billion people, the loss of an individual outside one's immediate social group will not have an effect on one's survival. Therefore, I think the point that was being made was that individuals have saved complete strangers even though it doesn't have an effect on the saver's survival and, in fact, is anathema to it. The saver doesn't "get anything" out of saving the other person, and in fact could lose quite a bit, but this has happened on more than one occasion.
Whether this is a survival instinct or a soul-based choice I can't say, but such questions should actually be discussed like grown-ups, not derisively squashed by folks like Mr. Bennett.
God
Unicorns
Leprechauns
what ever floats your boat, they're all fictional.
An interesting thesis and love your sweeping generalizations.
You seem to put the "religious" under your scrutiny for "crimes that are vile". But how about atheists who commit the vilest crimes as well?
Your line of reasoning concludes that philandering atheists seem to be ethical in your POV? They don't hurt anyone as long as the other party is agreeable. No guilt.
Evil priests & holy atheists...
Your relative concept of "the right thing" is dangerous. In other cultures sacrificing your first born is the "right thing" to do. Your lovely daughter would be a nice burnt offering if they're right.
The Jihad are doing the "right thing" as well. Very passionately until death. They're so right and you're wrong. Wouldn't you agree?
So if I understand Ben Shaprio's logic - then Satanists are morally superior to atheists, because they worship a god. Or does he mean only _his_ god? If that's the case, didn't he make a human decision which god to worship, which writings to believe as the word of god, etc.? How is that decision any different than an atheist choosing ethics?
Seems to me that "good" morals/ethics all boil down to the "Golden Rule," - do unto others as you would have done unto you. From the Christian bible, perhaps, but that doesn't make it wrong.
The author makes a fundamental mistake in the first few lines--unfortunately the rest of the article is predicated upon his initial misunderstanding.
"Sadly for Mr. Shaprio this reasoning is wrong - millions of people are considered to have excellent morals without god and since the concept of free will is derived specifically from religion it does not apply to the issue of atheism."
The error is that the position isn't that non-religious people can be ethical--that view is clearly untenable and plainly wrong. The position is that without God, morality would not be possible. (In short, divine command theory). But it is critical that one understands that the position is NOT that atheists cannot be ethical, the only charitable version of the position is that without God, no one could be moral as morality comes from God (atheist or not). Additionally, the intelligent position obviously isn't that God makes everyone morally good people. It's that God makes it _possible_ for people to be morally good people.
To illustrate that last part, a proponent of divine command theory would suggest that morality is akin to the existence of the universe. Atheists do not need to believe in God to benefit from the universe existing, but the universe existing would not be possible without God--the same applies with morality.
I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'm just making an important distinction.
The anonymous coward meekly squeaked "The saver doesn't "get anything" out of saving the other person, and in fact could lose quite a bit, but this has happened on more than one occasion."
And so you have evidence that it is hardwired in our brains to not be selfless? No? I didn't think so.
Empathy, loyality and rational thought have survival value if you want to speak in Darwinian terms, and empathy, loyalty and / or rational thought can lead one to give one's life for another stranger.
Go back to your hidey-hole.
I'll continue to speak as an adult to adults, but I'll mock silly fools ceaselessly. You're trying to elevate a silly argument to the level of serious debate for the sake of politeness. Bollocks to that.
"Religion tries to explain why things are the way they are. There are many religions with many explanations. Atheism needs a better explanation-- one that doesn't need to be revised and re-interpreted with each new wave of scientific discovery."
Do you really believe a static understanding of an everchanging world is better than learning more and adjusting one's perspective? Personally, I'm glad we stopped stoning people and believing that the sun revolved around the Earth.
Shapiro is more morally solvent than the following men apparently?
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson
" The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." - John Adams
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin
"The Anonymous Coward"
aka Adam Momsen, Saint Paul
Oh dear, please forgive me for not having an account here.
And what you mistake as "politeness" is really a matter of trying to come to a conclusion and continue actual thought-out dialogue. The trouble we have here is two groups of people coming at an argument with contradictory assumptions. But "serious debate" can only really occur when both sides agree that the other's idea has *some* merit. Otherwise it's not really a debate, it's two camps reciting their own dogma at each other.
What I object to, Mr. Bennett, is your blatant condescension that really makes you look like a Bible-thumping preacher-man (sans Bible), an image that simply weakens your stance (as it does to that of those who spew fire and brimstone).
I'm not trying to sit here and tell you you're wrong. I'm not saying you're right. But nobody really gets anywhere calling each other "silly fools" or laughing derisively at people who really are only trying to bring up a point or question.
As for empathy, loyalty, and rational thought, I'd love to see the "rational" thought-stream that leads someone to run into a burning building to save someone they don't know and will never see again. Heroic? Yes. The right thing to do? Certainly. Rational or logical? I sincerely doubt it.
Argument that you can't have choice without true free will is bollocks. Even if the overall material system is deterministic, it is still chaotic, unpredictable, and incredibly complex in ways that make us seemingly be able to make choices. That is our "free will", even if it is just an approximation. Die free will, die.
There's some genuinely awful logic in this very short post. For example: "Reprehensible behavior becomes morally acceptable and absolved once they confess but the matter of ethics is never once addressed."
If a sin in confessed, the action to which the penitent is confessing still remains a sin. Ethics are very much addressed--if ethics weren't being addressed, there would be nothing to confess as there would be no issue of right or wrong. Also, a proper confession requires a purpose of amendment in which the penitent acknowledges that their behavior was wrong and a pledge to avoid repeating the same action.
I love when people try to sound smart and then go on to misuse the term "beg the question." It has nothing to do with "a question that needs to be asked," and everything to do with erroneous logic know as a tautology. You sound just as foolish as Christians!
Adam Momsen: "Rational or logical? I sincerely doubt it."
How about "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Right from the green-blooded Vulcan himself.
Yes I'm being funny, although I think it still makes the point. Start with the right assumptions and you can rationally convince yourself of anything-- including self-sacrifice.
By the way, did you not read my earlier posts? I give due deference to reasonable arguments. But puncturevine's argument was just plain silly.
p.s.: I also do not have an account here. You can specify "name/url" as an option when you post.
here's my take on things mentioned above. with religion, take christianity there is a moral cde that one should follow, and there is the motivation of heaven if you follow it or hell if you don't (something that was developed after the bible). along with this certain faiths under the title of faith allow for follows to be absolved of their sin in the form of of confession (catholic) or some other type of act where one states their wrong doings and states that they will never do it again. it is my understanding that some offenses absolution comes with multiple statings of the lords prayer and or heil mary's. not the arguement here is that someone else has set up a system of morals and checks and balances for people to live their life by. and these ideas seem logical. but if for every sin there is a way to get absolved of it, what's the point of the moral code. again this is my understanding, but if you can get away with it, if you truly believe and adhere to this idea then where si the motivation. i remember an individual that i met who once tried to convert me. before doing so he was destroying a friend of mines bat by putting in the fire we had built. when confronted he scared my friend away by chasing him with the still flaming bat and hitting the ground behind him. he then told me that he was saved and that every night he prays for forgiveness for his sins and he is forgiven by God. he recognized that he acted poorly, but i didn't see where his religion met his personality and his actions. granted i am using an extreme case, but if the moral code is not your own and has plenty of loop holes - like an unbaptized man who waits until before he dies to get baptized is absolved of all his sins what's the point of truly following and internalizing this doctrine. i think of this as sometime trying to diet. the individual wants to lose weight - be good - there fore is attempting to change their habits - i.e. what is already their nature to do. as anyone will tell you most diets fail or end there is no real change of life style, but the diet continues until the thing needed is acquired.
now the argument against atheism is that without religion humans will not have a code to follow for them. but as we can see with everyday life, history and to some extent wild animals that people are inherently good. so with everyday life there has been a tipped scale in the news - and to not deal too low a blow to Christianity, jews and Muslims (it is my intention to respect everybody, i may fail to do that sometimes and i am sorry) - we have molestation, beatings, mutilation and other things performed in the name of religion. this goes against what most religions preach which is get along and be nice to people. historically we have the Crusades, tension between Hindus and Muslims and more recently fighting between Israelis and Palestinians.
now in most of these conflicts - it seems - if you take away people's religion, or at least take away that being a part of their identity, what is left? people and most people will still fight, they will stil argue and harm each other, but on the grand scheme of things is that any different from now? i feel that if individuals were to create their own moral code and feel bad for their actions and sometimes allowed to suffer with the guilt of making a mistake then we would achieve something most religions have not, an internal moral code with real, no offense to religious people out there, repercussions.
so here is my story on why i think this. i was raised without religion i was not dunked (baptised sorry couldn't resist) i did not tip the moiyal (sorry twice for this one i can't spell the name of this specialized rabbi) nor do i pray to mecca or have hundreds of gods to worship (i would think of more religions and jokes but let's move on). i grew up with the idea that when i did something wrong my parents would reprimand me and take the time to explain things to me, but beyond that i saw the pain my actions could cause others and that is where i am going with my argument, empathy. without empathy religion is just an idea people are encouraged - with the promise of something we can't even prove exist: i.e. heaven, hell, purgatory etc. so how can we teach compassion? this is where i would site to you the animal kingdom, animals are natuallry godo in that they don't kill their own kind. there are scuffles over mating - being a male i can relate - and there are carnivores (a hole in my argument that i willingly point out) what i am trying to point out is that we are naturally goodnatured, we evolved that way when our people started forming societies - something that doesn't work without cooperation (i.e. not killing or stealing).
so to me it doesn't matter what you do or do not believe in, you are as saintly as you want to be, as you feel you need to be. and as long as you are ok with your actions and are not harming people you are ok in my book.
rant over thanks for reading it all.
I do not see how atheist can be logically inferior when thiest believe in magical beings ?
"Religion tries to explain why things are the way they are. There are many religions with many explanations. Atheism needs a better explanation-- one that doesn't need to be revised and re-interpreted with each new wave of scientific discovery."
Atheism does NOT mean the absence of religion. Nor does it make any attempts to explain anything. It's just a stance on a single question: Does a God/Gods exsist?
Technically Buhddism is Atheistic in natures, in addition to several other religions.
Whether it's been said or not it really all comes down to this.
If you need some kind've leash around your neck to make you be a good person rather then just be a good person then I hate to break it to you.... you're unfit for life... if you had a soul you'd understand this....
Again: If you say that people need a leash around their necks to be good people I truly hope your family gets wiped off the face of this earth... it doesn't take god to tell you not to steal... all it takes is a conscience. (no god isn't my fucking conscience... god gave me free will remember?)
I have no account, I'll post under Ryan for you :)
Lazarus
I think Christians have destroyed the real religion/theology of Christ.
Yes – they are superstitious. It’s sad…but…;
Atheists believe in magic – because they believe everything magically appeared.
You have been alive for a few decades and you think you have it all figured out?
Will some genius atheist please show me one thing that is not the result of a cause.
Most athiests I run into tell me that their "morality" is to do their best not to harm their neighbor. But this is the very base of Christian morality. They don't know it, but they are following Christ.
The difference is athiests do it because they want to. Athiests are good to others because they are basically good people. In various religions people are nice because they're scared they're going to burn in hell if they don't. If your going to be a good person do it because you are, not because you're afraid of divine punishment. I know plenty of religious people, and plenty of athiests. In short, most of the religious people are jerks while the athiests are pretty decent.
Besides if you say that athiests have no free will, we're really no different than you are. If we don't, then neither do you. belief in a god doesn't change that. but that's beside the point since everyone has free will. You do what you want, not a predetermined set of actions due to chemical reactions. Animals are quite different from a group of lifeless atoms.
I believe that this article strikes at what most people choose to ignore; the question of ethics and they apply to people of religions. I am not an atheist but I do not believe in a divine being. I don't believe that people should act a certain way because they fear judgment from a being of whom they have never met. People, when they truly have a free will, don't act good; they are good. I would rather be good because I think that it is the right and just thing to do. Why cower in fear of a being who might even be biased towards? like in Islam, where the women can be killed for exposing her skin or in Catholicism where there have been raping of young boys? If you are SO holy than why do these intolerable acts happen? I agree with Ryan; if people need leashes then they are unable to control themselves and should just not be here. this may sound like a I am likening religious people to criminals but some of them are. It is a stereotype but if they want my respect and good will then they would simply try to get along with their fellow humans.
Don't be ignorant or biased as it will destroy us all.
Analogia said...
I think you completely misunderstood Ben Shaprio's article. His main point isn't that atheists are morally inferior; it's that they're logically inferior.
He's trying to say that atheists--based on their own, materialist presumptions--cannot LOGICALLY justify the existence of free will. I of course use the word "materialist" in the ontological sense (i.e. that nothing exists besides forms of matter).
He's saying that, without the possibility of "soul," (or something else that can constitute "me" that isn't just my body)then you can't postulate anything like freedom--since, without it, all "we" are is the result of pre-determined atomic/chemical interactions. As such, I can't say that you ought to act in any sort of way, since you really have no free choice in the matter at all. Any experience you or I have of "choice" is an illusion caused by the chemical reactions in my brain.
So I guess that: if we're determined by our atomic/chemical makeup; and we have an experience of freedom; "freedom" is an illusion. Why buy into the illusion and try to be moral if we know that everything is determined mathematically?
To say that we're free, if everything's determined, sounds like wishful thinking to me--not like reason.
THIS OWNED THIS WHOLE BLOG ALL OTHER POSTS BESIDES THIS ONE ARE MOOT
GO HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOULS
@joshyMinor
Religious people believe in a magical fairy man that created everything and then left said creation to its own demise, and athiests are the idiots?
The Bible, both old and new testement, are crucial in determining all peoples morals and dictates thier behaviour as god sees Moral and Just. If not for the Bible, how could those hethen Atheist know how to treat their slaves, or under what circumstances is it okay to kill thier childeren, or even how to make ammends for forcing yourself on a woman who is not engaged.
If left to their own judgment, they may find things like slavery, killing childeren, and Rape *gasp* immoral and unethical.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.
(Leviticus 20:9)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
You can't take the examples of an extremely low percentage and claim they represent the rest of the group. You make it sound as though all Catholics go out and molest small children, say a few words and it's okay. Yes it happened, and yes, technically they can say some prayers and it is okay. But there is a difference between a repentant and a non repentant sinner. If you look at the general theme of the Bible and Jesus' teachings we are called to love one another, He is even asked by the pharisees what the greatest commandment is where he responds to love one another as you love yourself. This doesn't seem very morally/ethically bankrupt to me. If you need me to further explain this to you or any questions about it I'd be glad to respond. wilsymonds@gmail.com
Your site has a lot of visitors so I assume this article isn't representative of your general material but I want to warn you that later in your life you are going to reread this and be supremely embarrassed. I would take it down now and write something you've thought about or at least read about to try to cover of the embarrassment. Seriously this was stupid article, you're not doing the cause of reason and enlightened thinking with this kind of tripe. I know the motto of blogging is 'output, output, output' but go ahead and take a break, think about it and then decide not to write it next time.
This was a very poorly written article. It offers nothing of substance to the debate on God, free will, or the ontology of Being. Most of the comments have been the same. These are ignorant variations of arguments made centuries and centuries ago. Read a book by someone who isn't Richard Dawkins, that arrogant prick. Check out Scotus Erigena, Aquinas, Augustine, Chisholm, Kierkegaard, Plantinga...someone who isn't a pompous British ass that seems to wage a war against Christianity.
Christians are not "ethically bankrupt," and atheists are perfectly capable of making moral decisions derived from social philosophies. What is stupid is this fucking extremism of both sides who refuse to acknowledge that the other side has a point, that you can both live a good, moral, free life as you see fit. But writing shit like this does nothing except dumb down the philosophical arguments behind religion, sociology, and life.
"Consequences that may save lives or prevent the loss of innocence in another child."
Slightly off topic, but I'd argue that in this sense the concept of 'innocence' of children is a religious/social construct itself and nothing to do with innocence in the sense of jurisprudence.
Children are said to be innocent because they have not yet tasted the fruit of that filthy tree of knowledge. Not because someone has accused them of doing wrong.
Since the English language is younger than the Christianity which has charectarised most of its speakers through history, it is very hard to use it without some implied religious overtone.
Overall, this is is a topic which can only be fairly debated in Loglan :-)
Want an easy way to get a bunch of comments on a blog? Talk about religion.
Personally, I think that the firefight between atheists and theists is rather amusing, and what better battlegrounds than the infinitely expanding internet - this way, everyone gets there chance to voice an opinion (regardless of how silly or ill-based they might be) and nobody's feelings really get hurt that bad.
To that end, I'd like to point out the third group in this whole situation, the one that I am currently placing myself in - There's believers, there's non-believers, and there's us, the peanut gallery.
I have to say that the religious bunch (save most eastern religions, of course) are the most militant about their opinions, but they've had centuries of training. The atheists, if nothing else, are clever in their ways of inflamming the tempers of the Saved.
Sure, the whole idea of a book containing all the answers of how we should act and live is somewhat ignorant, but so is the notion that science knows all, and that there's nothing greater than ourselves somewhere out there.
Solution: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Or maybe corrupt individuals come from every walk of life? Yea, blaming religion or lack thereof for "producing" morally corrupt people is foolish indeed. Regardless of the moral framework someone subscribes to they still make the choices to do good or evil.
Great article. Thanks for the information.
wow... the responses from threads like these always amaze me! there are always people who see things so very black and white and show a high level of ignorance. alright, well let me try to break this down for those of you (i'm agnostic if that makes any difference)
Question: My issue with athiests having morals is where do the morals come from? With believers we have a guide, a code found in the scripture. What is the athiests guide?
Answer: atheists and the like choose right and wrong based on many variables/inputs/outputs as do theists, who certainly believe they are basing it on some code or scripture although, much of the time, this is not the case.
for example: i committed unethical/immoral acts growing up and sometimes lied to my father about them. some i got away with, some i did not. however, i learned through the process that if i lied and he found out, the punishments were very severe and i felt terrible about my actions. i also learned that he was more understanding and less harsh when i came forward with the truth the first time around and took responsibility for my actions. if i lied and got away with it, i always had a cloud of guilt looming over my head and the fear that one day he may find out. ergo, i learned right from wrong solely through the way my father raised me and the rest of my siblings, not because some scripture told me right from wrong.
i have lived and continue to live every day of my life by basing all of my actions and decisions on the culmination of responses/affects gained from all of the actions and decisions i have previously made throughout my life, not through some scripture i've read or have been indoctrinated with.
it is the process of action and response that we behave the way we do. if a supreme being has granted everyone of us free will, then we all make our own decisions as there is no moral/ethical code being forced onto us. when we decide to act a certain way, whether the action follows a scripture or not, we conciously made the decision. nothing ever forces us to behave a certain way, and this goes for athiests, agnostics, and theists alike. if there is no such thing as free will, then us talking about this is irrelevant (it was meant to be.. all part of the plan).
i've known many people who are flawed by their religious hypocrisy just as i've non-religious folk flawed by hypocrisy. everything always swings both ways and we all become flawed as soon as we presume to know how the world works and shut out all other possibilities. even more so is to criticize others for not following the same beliefs. there is not one soul on this earth that knows why we are here, how we got here, and what our purpose is other than to consume energy and surivive, yet many of us presume to know. we spend countless hours squabbling over something we will probably never solve/understand, we criticize, kill and/or put the lives of millions at risk, hate, shun, banish, create laws and restrictions, force one another to abide some code, etc.. and for what? because some scripture or voice tells us to do these things? some scripture or deity we have put blind faith in? or because we don't believe a scripture is legitimate? because we humans know everything? no.. no, see this kind of thinking is just wrong. our actions should never have any harmful or negative affect on anyone but ourselves.
i've prayed, i've cried, i've bled, i've inched death, i've laughed, i've enjoyed, and most importantly, i've learned. i've learned that i enjoy being happy, i enjoy having those around me and, even those i don't know, happy, and i've learned that i want the world to be a better place than it currently is. i do good because i want good, not because i will be punished in the afterlife (which we don't even know exists) if i do otherwise. i'm not perfect, and neither is anyone else, but it is the understanding of one another and the realization that we are all here together whether we like it or not, and that every single one of our actions has the possibility of affecting one, thousands, or millions of other people.
so, "do onto others as you would have others do onto you" may have come from a scripture, but the fact that i don't necessarily believe those words came from a supreme being doesn't mean that i can't follow what they say or that if i do follow these words, then i am putting my faith in some scripture or supreme being.. it merely means that i have found, through trial and error (causality), that those words hold some merit and truth.
my philosophy is simple (and remember.. i'm agnostic):
live free, live happy, and live wholesomely, but, live modestly, live unselfishly, and live respectfully. educate and take care of yourself so that you can, in return, educate and take care of those around you, including the future generations to come. believe what you want to believe and allow all others to do likewise. we may not know what our purpose is, but that should not stop us from humanely sorting out our differences to achieve things we never dreamed possible, and neutrality is key.
that is *my* code, not taught through scripture or indoctrination. it's not perfect, and nothing ever is. however, i do the best i can and expect, even prefer, to be challenged. we are all brothers and sisters here, whether or not we believe differently. in the words of ben harper, "so my choice is what i choose to do, and if i'm causin no harm, it shouldn't bother you. and you're choice is who you choose to be, and if you're causin no harm, then you're alright with me. if you don't like my fire, then don't come around, cause i'm gonna burn one down."
Merry Barak Obama day. The break of a new dawn to you all. Truly the prophet walks the earth.
I always look forward to articles where religious nutters make absolute ars** of themselves by trying to defend the indefensible.
God is dead. Long live Barak!
If the soul guides us, why is it when the brain is injured, we can turn into a totally different person?
Where is the soul when Alzheimers is full effect and the person we know is now reduced to infancy?
Judging from the nobody guides you without God crowd, it seems that religious people lack the empathy like the rest of us to inform them what is right and wrong.
Building on Analogia's first point above, I would also like to point out that atheists being moral (and even better off than Christians, for example) is entirely consistent with Christianity, which teaches that we are made in the image and likeness of God, and since God is good and just (or rather, defines what just and good are), therefore it makes sense that every person understands what right and wrong are and acts accordingly.
Yay, I am a buddhist.
No such bullshit like confessions and stuff. Nobody's gonna save you, theres no heaven/hell fantasies and stuff.
Morality is merely ranked 3 in terms of intellectual pursuit (the other two being concentration and wisdom).
We don't event consider it an important issue, we think its ultimately cultivated by yourself whether you believe in a god or not, unlike many of the religions where the whole point is about morality.
It's simply ignorant to claim that ethics cannot exist without a higher authority. Philosophers have been thinking out ways you can have ethics without God for centuries. Kant argued that rationality itself produces ethics. Utilitarians argue that ethics derives from maximizing happiness, which does not require God. Even classical virtue, which relies upon traditional notions of excellence, does not require the existence of God.
Whether you're a theist or an atheist, you cannot claim that ethics are impossible with God.
"Most athiests I run into tell me that their "morality" is to do their best not to harm their neighbor. But this is the very base of Christian morality. They don't know it, but they are following Christ."
You can believe in the principles without believing in the man/spirit/whatever form he wants to be in.
"It's simply ignorant to claim that ethics cannot exist without a higher authority."
_____
This is true because, as "ethics" or "morality" are simply terms we use to describe a set of values, and whereas most living creatures have a set of values, i.e., some criteria for making one choice instead of another, then most living organisms have an ethic. We must acknowledge the fact that, of course, human beings are far more complex and dynamic in their behavior and can form values that most other species cannot and perhaps have no need of in any event. Still, although we are more complex in ethical behavior, we are not unique in the possession of values and therefore of ethics.
If I choose not to take a life, it is not because a deity instructed me not to, it is because I value that life for my own reasons which can be many and diverse. If I choose not to steal from another, it isn't because a "god" gave me a commandment not to, it's because I myself understand the cruelty having what belongs to me stolen and will not invite that sadness and pain on another. My empathy toward their life stops me from causing them injury that I myself do not wish to suffer.
One can choose rational values or one can choose irrational values. We choose which we will act on from moment to moment. What guides me personally is a good and proficient intellect and my ability to understand and feel what another life experiences as consequence to my actions and words. I choose rational passions and passionate reason. To make good decisions in my own life and to treat others with respect and an overall attitude of non-interference, I do not need the psychological crutch that is the imaginary parental figure most commonly referred to as "God".
'Seems to me that "good" morals/ethics all boil down to the "Golden Rule," - do unto others as you would have done unto you. From the Christian bible, perhaps, but that doesn't make it wrong.'
Stop saying that the golden rule is a Christian belief.
"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." (Pittacus c. 640-568 BC)
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." (Thales c. 624-546 BC)
"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." (Isocrates c. 436–338 BC)
All of these philosophers predate the Bible by hundreds of years. You're exact phrasing of the golden rule may be from the New Testament, but do not pretend that it was an original idea.
This is not a very good argument. I'm an atheist.
Both systems of determining right and wrong have some sort of accountability. But with atheism, it's easier to actually get away with infractions because of the lack of an all-knowing being.
The one standard to which we are all accountable is that of nature. One may do as one wishes, however, nature establishes the consequences for all action or inaction.
You may possess whatever values you wish, however, you may not dictate the consequences of those values. That power is beyond your reach and always shall be. Your success as a form of life will always depend on how you respond or react to that which you can authentically control and that which you cannot.
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." - Francis Bacon
Indeed... believers in the legitimacy of the state are morally bankrupt.
Its interesting that most of these things that I read are more fact twisting and down your throat raming that most total rightwing fundamentalist sites.
You guys are just another religion.
And an angry one at that....trying to force all who disagree with you out of society. That sounds more like dangerous extreemism than anything else.
Wake up people, they have been misleading you all with religion for thousands of years. It is complete bullshit. Holy holy holy, all lies... If you want to believe just believe in yourself... You see what you want to see, it is like the game of the universe, how everything works. It is limitless... But do not believe someone or something is bigger then you, then you will always loose my friends. You are the god, like everybody else is. So lets work together as gods of this universe, as creators and creations...
Just skip the good bad dualism and make up your mind... Get peace in yourself then everything comes along.
A god like you
Who was it that said "atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby"? Religion, lol.
I have personally witnessed God. Your hatred of God makes me think that he shorted you in some physical sense. To be so egomaniacal that you can assert that God does not exist begs the question, how do you know everything ? Since you assert God does not exist, you must know everything. Atheists tend to be pieces of shit and you just made the pile stinkier and bigger.
Indeed... believers in the legitimacy of the state are morally bankrupt..
You miss the point; it's a very poorly written article. Your first comment gets it right - how can material make decisions? You don't actually exist - as an entity - apart from a bunch of atoms working together for a short time.
The commenter I have quoted below has no free will or original thought due to using something so time worn and childish:
"Anonymous said...
pwned"
It is time to retire that idiotic non wrod forever.
I am an atheist who forms my own thoughts, attitudes and determines my own actions based upon my own gut feelings rather than someone else's system of accepting fictional whatevers from any imaginary being.
I for one, like the bible.
I find it burns quickly and makes excellent kindling.
Regarding the Bible: Christianity is a message of Love and Compassion, to be applied in every instance. This message is perfect, unassailable. That we as Christians do bad things is not a failing of Christianity, it's a failing of humans. Humans are imperfect. How severely misguided to assume followers of Christ will not fall or stumble. If you can ignore the mainstream rap that labels Christians as "religious freaks" or "zealots out to get you", you may realize that the vast majority of Christians are some of the most loving, compassionate, and tolerant people you will encounter.
Knowledge is not a right, and is not spoon-fed, it has to be attained.
I love the people who post things to the effect of "without the bible how will you know what is right and wrong?"...
Well, all I can say to that is that i don't need someone to tell me what's right and wrong. It's pretty simple really. I don't need the idea of a god or an afterlife to make my life complete. The idea that only those who follow religion can truly be good people is ridiculous.
What is my motivation to be a good neighbor? Do i need a reason? Is it better to be a good person because you fear judgement in the afterlife, or because it's just the right thing to do? To me the person who doesn't believe in afterlife, yet still makes the effort to be a good person gets the "moral" high ground, because they're doing good things for the sake of doing good things.
Religion is a fairy tale anyway. A good example is Roman and Greek mythology. In it's heyday, those religions were absolute. Today we look at them and think "how silly that they believed in all those fake gods". The only difference is that i look at the current religions today and think the same thing.
I don't think that atheists have to do anything with bankrupt, and I don't think that even religious people wouldn't have to do anything with it... all I want to say is that we have to be all responsible for our actions - and nothing more.
Why do people think they need some sort of otherworld influence to guide them in a moral direction. Do they want someone to kill them? No! Do they want to be robbed, cheated, enslaved, tortured or the like? No! All you have to do is treat people the way you would like to be treated and throw those ancient, out dated, instruction manuals you call holy books away.
Hi all,
I'm beginning to think I've made a very big mistake.
"To be so egomaniacal that you can assert that God does not exist begs the question, how do you know everything ? Since you assert God does not exist, you must know everything."
__________
The short but essential answer to your view is that, as a so-called "atheist", I can make no informed statements about the "god" you claim exists. What I can say in the affirmative is the claims of persons such as yourself are grossly lacking in accurate observation and consistently logical reasoning to support what you claim exists. It's an important point to say "theist claims of the existence of a god are insufficiently supported" rather than "there is no god". An "atheist" doesn't reject the theist "god", they reject theist arguments to support their claims.
I could tell you of my absolute faith that there are salt-sucking creatures with twelve legs, seven eyes, and the power of telepathy on the planet Neptune and challenge you to prove they do not exist without giving you sufficient argument for my faith. You cannot know anything more about these creatures than I tell you, and therefore you must examine whatever arguments I make to back up what I'm saying. You cannot reject belief in these creatures because you never had belief in them to start with. You can, however, reject my claims as unsupported and therefore useless to human knowledge until such time I present you with an argument that supports my claims.
This is all an "atheist" does - reject claims of a "god" because those who claim it offer incredibly deficient support for the claims. This isn't rejection of something they never believed to begin with - it is rejection of the claims of theists as unsupported by fact and reasoning.
This is an important distinction and one I hope you come to understand ... eventually.
catholics are asswipes. the bible doesnt do shit for u, just gives u an excuse to hate everything and be hippocrites.
The real problem with saying anyone is morally bankrupt is all morals are subjective. There is no absolute right or wrong; good and evil are merely points of perspective. The only standard of values that means anything is the rule of law, and only because we as a society have collectively given it power over generations.
So many people confuse the word "morality" with "ethics" that it isn't even funny. Morality is an individual point of view on what is right and wrong - Ethics is a common set of laws that encompasses the moral beliefs of the majority of a set of people in a society. Just because an individual beleives it is morally unacceptable to have an abortion doesn't mean everyone does or even should feel that same way, nor is such a decision necessarily unethical.
And what is this BS about atheists not believing in free will? OF COURSE our so-called sense of "free will" is the result of chemicals forming a pattern of thought in our brains. A point I would like to make, though, is that, while we can verify that chemical interactions in our brains influence our thoughts, there is no scientific method or procedure to control or measure exactly how those chemicals react to form thoughts. In this sense, the only difference I can see between atheists and theists, is that athiests may believe this chemical reaction could one day be measured... theists believe it cannot ever be measured, because God created us that way, with free will.
"So many people confuse the word 'morality' with "ethics" that it isn't even funny."
_____
It seems true that the words "morality" and "ethics" and even "values" are used differently depending on who you're talking with and that's fine for individual purposes. Nevertheless, it is true that, in general, when one speaks of "morality" or "ethics" one is speaking of essentially the same thing - a set of values. Those values may be individually held or they may be common to many and, in truth, each of us is, in fact, a combination of personally held values as well as values we hold in common with others. Of course, no set of values either personally held or held commonly are ever static. Values are necessarily contextual otherwise they are of no utility. Because context is ever-changing, so too are values.
I know that many wish to point to "ethics" as though it is a very specific set of values in contrast to others, and they wish to point to "morality" as though that is a very specific set of values in comparison with "ethics". It's the nature of language that it evolves through the ways people use it and that's fine and necessary. Nevertheless, whatever term you choose to use to refer to "a set of values" in general without reference to who holds the values and why they hold them, you are speaking of the synonyms "ethics" AND "morality" as they are used in philosophy as a field of study.
I must say, I disagree with the linguistic split of the terms "ethics" and "morality" away from their status as synonyms to having very different meanings because it muddies the ever-raging debate over values. It is precisely a lack of good understanding of what "ethics" and "morality" refer to - values - that causes these arguments. As I've said before, most living creatures - human and non-human - have values, i.e., whatever criteria is used to make choices in face of alternatives. This necessarily means many forms of life have an ethic of sorts with human beings having the most complex values and thus the most complex ethics on the planet.
As I've said before, it is literally impossible for any living creature to be "morally bankrupt". All life faces alternatives because life must do something to remain life otherwise it perishes. Rocks face no alternatives to remain rocks and thus have no need of values and no need of ethics. That a thing is living necessarily implies alternatives, values, choices, ethics. No human being has ever been morally or ethically bankrupt and none can or ever shall be.
Of course, certainly, human beings will continue to bicker over whose values are superior and whose are inferior without fully realizing that values are necessarily individually chosen. Your values can never be superior to my own in my life. My values can never be superior to your own values in your life. This speaks to the concepts of inalienable individual rights and liberty - the supreme american values, or so many say.
JCE, UR a genius.
Thos who atack u and call u "stupid", should not be able to speak. Too bad. I always said, theris no justice in this world, so how can it be the work of "god"
a chicken can come up with a better plan. All "religious" books are not worth the paper they are printed on. I use them to wipe my "@$$" with. That is what they are worth. People who have more than hi school education, and still beleive in god, are fucking dead. They have what I call "butt-head syndrome". All they need to cure themselves. Is to take their heads out of their butts.
Every war, every human tragedy is rooted in religious beliefs. When will those MORONS, realize this. You don't need beliefs to do shit. You can't even bake 1 loaf of bread with ur stupid beliefs.
if their is a "god" it is the most dispicable slug in existance. It is idiotic, egotistic, psychopathic slug. This is UR 'god" morons.
Send me your bibles and your torah and your quran etc... I am running out of toilet paper.
I love you jenny.
X
Post a Comment