Amoral atheists

[McCulloch]

In another thread

Nonsense is thinking that an atheist can have a moral position on anything but self-centered wants.

This is a common misunderstanding among Christians. Since they believe that their God is the source of all moral values, then how can someone who does not believe in the supernatural have moral values.
So, let's debate.
AlAyeti seems to have taken the position that atheists are by definition amoral and self-centered.
I will take the position that atheism is consistent with moral values and is not necessarily self-centered.

[DanMRaymond]

I agree that ALL Christians aren't just going to do things to get to heaven. I know better than to think that. But, the point of the whole thing is to be good and you get to go to heaven, so that has to be a very big reason why any christian would do good.

I hardly think that using the world "self-interest" applies when talking about an atheist that wants to do good deeds. Helping other people, for instance, has nothing to do with self-interest unless there is a reward involved.

When you say "self-interest" though, selfishness is implied. It's the opposite of selfishness to be a good person. You cant simply say that it IS selfishness because the good person wants to feel good by helping people and therefore is selfish.

BUT if thats not the kind of "self-interest" we are talking about, then this conversation is hardly worth having.

[AlAyeti]

"The basic "moral" definitions is about being "right and wrong", and "aMoral" is defined as "Without moral standards or principles". This creates a Paradox, as no one can be aMoral, as everyone have to have some set of standard. (else they would need ot be dead)."

"So no, atheist are not aMoral in any way, the question is flawed."

/ / /

The premise was not are they are aren't they, it was how are they? Moral that is.

The narrow view perspective is not condusive to an overview of the question being posed.

Atheists by definition have no basis of "right and wrong" other than in their own mind. The danger in that not being challenged is quite clear to any thinking philosophy.

I am trying to remember in which topic post LilSnopp gave an apt description of just how an Atheist feels about their individual (redundant) belief.

It was frightening but accurate to my assertion of the what and how of atheist "dogma."

Christians, if history is the guide, did their "acts" and evangelization out of appreciation to God for the gift of salvation. It was not until men found political power that the message got stained.

Heaven is 100% assured at conversion. Jesus: "No one can snatch them out of my hand." The rest is what and how you respond to that salvation.

The major Universities that were started as religious institutes proves what appreciative people do. That they are the dens of hypocritical secularism isn't the fault of the builders but the hypocrites and heretics.

I am an AAtheist, by empiricism. I have met many good people who claim that they are Atheists but, by their actions proved that the were not. That is Biblically fundamental, so why shouldn't I believe it.

You can't always believe what a person says in regards to what they believe. You have to judge the actions. Also Biblical as well as scientific.

The question of flawed logic only enters the fray when an Atheist does something morally sound, as they are then hypocrites to their own beliefs. But, in a good way.

The example of fertilizer comes to mind. It's origin may not be to my liking but the end result is good. Life!

[QED]

Atheists by definition have no basis of "right and wrong" other than in their own mind. The danger in that not being challenged is quite clear to any thinking philosophy.

Since when was that part of the definition of Atheist? The collective mind of the theist receives it's code from a written source. But that source can be far from coherent: I was just reading this essay and the following caught my eye:

Atheists can perhaps express compassion more easily than believers because we are not confused by fatalism ("Whatever happens is God's will"), pessimism ("We deserve to suffer"), salvation ("Death is not the end"), retribution ("Justice will prevail in the afterlife"), magic ("Pray for help"), holy war ("Kill for God"), forgiveness ("I won't be held responsible for my mistakes"), or glory ("Suffering with Christ is an honor"). Since this is the only life we atheists have, each decision is crucial and we are accountable for our actions right now.

What a moral maze! To have all that in mind when considering ones actions makes me fear for the consequences.

Confucius, 500 years before Christianity, phrased the principle best when he said, "Don't do to others what you would not have them do to you." Although this is still not a fully adequate principle for ethics, it is much better than "Do unto others" because it identifies the avoidance of harm as the key to morality.

Now doesn't that make a lot more sense?

[McCulloch]

Of what worth is Thomas Paine more than my neighbor?
Zero.
That your reference a pamphlateer from a treasonous period of British history proves what? Paine is sorely wrong about Christianity. I would have had his theology for lunch and had him walk away the religious numbskull that his writing proves he was.

One of the rules of this forum is that there should be no personal attacks. This perhaps should be extended even to dead people. Rather than attaching derogatory labels and claiming that you could best him in a debate, please just address the issues he raises.

You present Paine and I'll present C.S. Lewis. An ex-atheist who wrote some of the best works on explaining the rationality of Christianity ever penned.

I've read C.S. Lewis. He was hardly a fundamentalist. But he also did not adequately answer the problem of evil and suffering. Although he did put together well reasoned arguments.

I choose to use my own mind.

I also choose to use my own mind. But I will not ignore the minds of those who have gone before.

The Five O'Clock news proves Jesus of Nazereth to me. Sodom and Gomorrah were no more myth than Boston and San Fransisco.

You've lost me. The Five O'Clock news proves that some people behave in ways that you would not approve. It also shows that politicians lie, businessmen cheat and steal, generals rattle their swords and the poor, as always, suffer. Where I lose you is how that particularly proves the tale of a wondering Jewish Messiah two thousand or so years ago.

Empiricism firmly supports my position.

You keep repeating that. But I have not noticed where you have backed this statement up with evidence. I'm not always particulary bright, so I may have missed it.

[McCulloch]

Nonsense is thinking that an atheist can have a moral position on anything but self-centered wants.

Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist.

There is no basis for non-self philanthropy in an Atheist. There can't be. How can there be logic in the mind of a person who wants justice and yet has no higher morality to claim perspective of right and wrong?

Why does any person take any particular action?

• One reason is that the action serves the person's perceived self-interest. This could be a person taking a job in order to further his career and increase his chances of future happiness. Or it could be a sinner repenting and accepting Jesus into his heart in order to avoid the prospect of eternal torment and look forward to the reward of eternal life in Abraham's bosom.

• The other reason is that the person truly loves some other and will take some action in order to further the interests of that other. It could be that the other that is loved is the idea of God. In that case, the saint does deeds in order that the interests of God on earth are advanced. It could also be that the other is some other person, a group of people, tribe, state or even humanity itself. Any one can have a moral position on things other that self-centered wants.

All that it takes is to be able to see that you are not the center of the universe. For Christians, this idea might be difficult. Christians believe that the Creator of the universe wants to have a one-to-one personal relationship with them. Atheists believe that we are one of a species of higher primates, who's very survival depends on social reciprocity. Most of us know that this life is all that we have and so we try to find meaning in what is real, what can be known, what is around us.

[AlAyeti]

McCullogh,

Your last post was fantastic. You certainly stand as an equal to any other personal perspective from any time period.

I hope the indented presentation was original.

What I seek is equality. I am not somehow of lessor worth or intelligence to the people who seek to form society as some secular nirvana, becuase I see absolute logic in believing in Jesus as God and as the Creator of the Universe. I feel I have very well grounded reasons for doing so.

I only want every single person no matter their beliefs, to live a very long and violence free life and die of natural causes. How can I see this belief in someone who has no beliefs?

I certainly have seen much beauty come from secular-atheists. But far too often the radical emotionalists that hysterically represent the demand the only voice in society. I see atheists talk a good game about morality, justice and tolerance for "diversity," and what we get is a sexual promiscuity masked in philosophical rhetoric.

I mean what I say about Paine. I deeply appreciate this man on freedom issues. But his view of Christianty is grossly mistaken and I wouldn't let him off the hook.

I see the same wrong point of view from in QED's referenced know-it-all. I find appreciation and togetherness with God, not fear of being tossed into an eternal pit. In fact, when you are not a believer there is no such thing as hell.

Just one more hedonistic venture after another, like a bilge rat foraging for a future on some new land.

With Christ I walk with God because He went looking for me first. How would anyone respond to that?

[DanMRaymond]

I see atheists talk a good game about morality, justice and tolerance for "diversity," and what we get is a sexual promiscuity masked in philosophical rhetoric.

Ok here we go I'm about to adress the issue without any philosophical rhetoric:

Sexual promiscuity has nothing to do with morality - Sexual promiscuity is great anyway. Everybody should do it. I enjoy having a variety of women to choose from that I am not committed to in any way. They also enjoy it. Everybody wins. What does this have to do with morality? Nothing.

[Corvus]

I agree that ALL Christians aren't just going to do things to get to heaven. I know better than to think that. But, the point of the whole thing is to be good and you get to go to heaven, so that has to be a very big reason why any christian would do good.

I hardly think that using the world "self-interest" applies when talking about an atheist that wants to do good deeds. Helping other people, for instance, has nothing to do with self-interest unless there is a reward involved.

But very often there is a reward, just one that isn't material.

When you say "self-interest" though, selfishness is implied. It's the opposite of selfishness to be a good person. You cant simply say that it IS selfishness because the good person wants to feel good by helping people and therefore is selfish.

I don't mean to imply that self interest (the interests of the self) are in any way a bad thing. But very often in premeditated acts of kindness, I think a feeling of well-being takes precedence over other feelings of sympathy or empathy. One example would be the donation of money to people living in another country who one doesn't know at all. But I maintain that the majority of good actions, which are spur of the moment things, are not done for any real reason, but because of upbringing, culture, education, psychology, etc.

[AlAyeti]

Dan,

Your:

"Sexual promiscuity has nothing to do with morality - Sexual promiscuity is great anyway. Everybody should do it. I enjoy having a variety of women to choose from that I am not committed to in any way. They also enjoy it. Everybody wins. What does this have to do with morality? Nothing."

/ / /

The stigma of the licentious, lascivious and "amoral" Atheist, is obviously not grounded in hysteria or religious prejudice.

I couldn't have created a more accurate picture of hedonistic narcissisitic "godless" behavior better than you did.

I have been exonerated time and time again from the label of being "ignorant" or "closed-minded" by statements such as yours from actual adherents of the beliefs.

It's one I'll print out and keep like a trophy mount. Sometimes I don't always hear God tell me I'm right.

[Corvus]

Dan,

Your:

"Sexual promiscuity has nothing to do with morality - Sexual promiscuity is great anyway. Everybody should do it. I enjoy having a variety of women to choose from that I am not committed to in any way. They also enjoy it. Everybody wins. What does this have to do with morality? Nothing."

/ / /

The stigma of the licentious, lascivious and "amoral" Atheist, is obviously not grounded in hysteria or religious prejudice.

I couldn't have created a more accurate picture of hedonistic narcissisitic "godless" behavior better than you did.

I believe DanMRaymond is asking why this sort of behaviour shouldn't be indulged in. I too would like to know.