AlAyeti wrote:
There is no basis for non-self philanthropy in an Atheist. There can't be. In fact why would an atheist even leave his or her name to a building (after they die) when they will not receive any benefit from the posterity of the gesture? Pure ego maybe but that speaks to my position that nothing an atheist does is and or can be anything but only self-interest driven.
How can a crime be committed against an atheist? Isn't survival of the fittest the only power to the life's exisitence? Is robbery and murder just examples of survival?
etc.
Hello, Al...
I know I promised to bow out of this forum, and I really do intend to do so, but I couldn't let this tirade pass uncontested.
I realize my words will have little effect on you, since you don't seem interested so much in the exchange of ideas as in the obstinate propagation of your own dogma; you write (mostly) cohesive sentences, yet say very little, beyond stamping your feet and declaring,
ex cathedra, what is and what must be.
Surprisingly, though, on one point you and I are in agreement: the humanist moral code is based solely on self-interest. I am one who does not believe that pure altruism exists - and as such, I submit that the Christian moral code is similarly self-interest based. Think about it, Al, and answer honestly: If there were no heaven and no hell - if God simply said, "Be good, or else...well, just be good" - how inclined would you be to behave morally? If you say it would make no difference to you, then you are as much as admitting that God erred in creating such rewards and punishments for his followers, since they are redundant. If, however, you are honest and admit you would be less inclined to behave morally, then you are admitting that the Christian system of ethics is personal-gain-driven. So in that respect, it is moot to state that
nothing an atheist does is and or can be anything but only self-interest driven
...since the same applies to Christianity.
Similarly, I agree with your invocation of survival of the fittest. But of course you know that natural selection works on whole populations, not individuals. The whole of humanity benefits through cooperative, "mutual altruism," (which of course is not truly altruistic, because we do unto others hoping that they will do similarly unto us!). This form of enlightened self-interest benefits humanity by enabling individuals to be fruitful and multiply. Feed a village in Africa, and its citizens will thrive beyond the age of reproduction. And one of its citizens may then survive to become a Nobel-laureate cancer researcher.
Simply put, the humanist acts morally because to do so improves the world - a vanishingly small amount, but it is improved nonetheless - and who does not want to live in an improved world?
Were there atheists before atheism?
I don't know what point you're making here, but I think a more apt question would be, "were there atheists before theism?" Obviously not - which shows that atheism is not a philosophy in and of itself, so it is useless to impute moral codes to atheists in general. This is why I speak solely of humanism.
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?
Think, Al. If humanist morality did not have a perspective of right and wrong, why would we want justice? Why would we care? How could we even reliably perceive any injustice to correct? So we must be getting it from somewhere. And yes, in a fashion it is a "higher" morality, albeit not as high as The Most High, whose moral authority has been undermined by his own moral bankruptcy.
Humanist morals derive from our knowledge of the human condition, from the needs of humanity in general, as opposed to being confined to the needs of individuals only.
We claim that individuals have rights, but that some needs of the individual must be subjugated to the needs of other individuals or the needs of humanity (the "higher" authority). We believe the proper course of action in any moral dilemma is the one that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain for as many individuals as possible. We may heatedly debate which course of action will bring that result, but experience has
shown that humanity eventually "gets it right" - albeit after many missteps. We learn from our mistakes. And
we take as our authority the fact that this process has worked for us in the past, and that gradually humanity is slowly refining its moral character. Contrary to what Christians maintain, we are getting better. We shed slavery; we gave women equal rights; we overturned two centuries of anti-black bigotry in the space of a generation...we hold Olympiads to which the entire world is invited; we have doctors giving up cushy practices to tend to the needy in the most poverty-stricken areas; we hold concerts to benefit tsunami victims we will never meet...how much of this was even thinkable a scant 500 years ago?
This, then, is our moral authority:
Whatever Works.
I submit that, as long as it continues to work, it is the only authority we will ever need.
Finally, Al, the best proof that an atheist can be moral is probably the existence of seemingly selfless atheists. To this end, I leave you with two words:
Pat Tillman.
Bye all.
