The question is "Is it nonsense thinking that an atheist can have a moral position on anything but self-centered wants?"
Pro:
AlAyeti
Con:
McCulloch
Here are the arguments on the Con side of this issue:
McCulloch
By the very wording of his statement, AlAyeti has consigned to himself the burden of proof.
AlAyeti wrote:Nonsense is thinking that an atheist can have a moral position on anything but self-centered wants.
He can multiply examples of atheists who seem to have no morals without proving his case. If I find but one example of an atheist who has "a moral position on anything but self-centered wants.", I have proven his statement false. But, I don't even have to go that far. If I can show that it is reasonable to believe that an atheist can have a moral position on anything but self-centered wants then I have proven his statement to be false.
I brought into the discussion the ideas of Theodore Schick, Jr who argues that "There is no unambiguous evidence that theists are more moral than nontheists." and that "The threat of divine punishment cannot impose a moral obligation, for might does not make right." "Fundamentalists correctly perceive that universal moral standards are required for the proper functioning of society. But they erroneously believe that God is the only possible source of such standards. Philosophers as diverse as Plato, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, George Edward Moore, and John Rawls have demonstrated that it is possible to have a universal morality without God."
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.
Corvus
Enlightened self-interest is not necessarily equal amorality. Corvus uses an example of a moral act without regard to theism and argues that self-interest is the only rational basis for morality, Christian, atheist or otherwise.
LillSnopp has a problem with definition of morals but agrees that atheists are not amoral in any way.
bernee51 can see no reason for there to be any necessity for a god belief in order to be moral.
Dilettante brings up Benedict Spinoza's "Ethics" as an example of a solid ethical theory without reference to a personal god.
Fragallrocks
Shows by means of a hypothetical situation that christians are really acting shelfishly when being moral.
foshizzle relates that some Athiests have sacrificed their lives. This is ultimately respectful, not amoral.
Squall,
QED and
DanMRaymond also weighed in on the side that Atheists can be moral
