Question to Atheists: How do you account for morality?

[pj084527]

I find the worldview of Atheism to be intellectually bankrupt due to your inability to offer objective morality.  

Maybe SOME Atheists can be morally good. But having good morals (based on the Bible) doesn’t mean you have objective morals. One atheist’s good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist’s isn’t (examples: Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot).

True morals are those that are based outside of yourself, it is not merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it helps stop the guy with the gun from taking your food and your life. There is something more and the Holy Bible offers us just that. It offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. Therefore, it is always wrong to lie, to steal, to commit adultery, and to bear false witness, but not so in atheism’s empty moral vacuum because morality is formed in a godless subjective manner.

Some of you may say that the best moral system is that which brings the greatest happiness to the largest amount of people and the least amount of suffering as possible. That is a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t work. Take a look at gang rape, for example. The suffering of one person brings joy and sexual relief to more than one person. In a godless worldview why is it wrong? Because you think so? If you say it’s wrong because the minority is suffering, so what? Why is suffering wrong? It may be unpleasant. It may not be nice. But, from an atheistic worldview, why is it morally wrong to oppress a minority to benefit the majority? Atheism can’t help us here. It just isn’t up to the task of proving solid answers.

So, if you are an attractive young woman walking down a dark road and you see a stranger approaching you, who would you rather the stranger be? A Christian who believes rape is wrong and that God is watching or an atheist who feels the need to 'past on his genes' and grabs you as he adapt his ethics to suit the moment?

Atheists, please answer my question and try to explain to me what morals do you have to offer.

[Tanker]

So are you saying without the Bible, as in you had never read or even heard of it, you would rape, muder,steel, ect, ect? Or how about this since the Bible says little to nothing about not sexually abusing children does that mean god doesn't have an issue with it? If not what prevents you from abusing kids? Could it be that morals are in no way dependant on any god or holy text. Morality can be as simple as social contract between you and everyone else, ie; "don't steal from me and I won't steal from you". Many morals are passed of by parenting and societal preasure as in follow the rules that make everyone happy or become a pariah.

This issue has already been covered on this site MANY times before. The speed between your last post and this one make me think that you copy and pasted them. Which leads me to believe that a) you have not taken the time to fully search this forum and b) you may be a spamer/troll.

[Mr Jack]

Hi pj084527. Thank you for your question. Morality is an exceptionally interesting topic, and although your question is an exceptionally common one, you appear to be asking it genuinely. I hope you can read the answers and learn.


I completely agree with you that morality is not subjective. It is not a matter of opinion. If morality is a matter of opinion, personal taste, or cultural norms, then it is meaningless, and yes, we can justify anything. We need an explanation of morality that is deeper than that.

Imagine, hypothetically, some cavepeople with no sense of right and wrong. How would they act? There would be no way to trust anyone, the strong would hunt, rape, and probably eat the weak, and the weak would try to run away. It would be rather awful. But imagine that two of these cavepeople, most likely equally strong to each other, come together, and agree to look out for each other. Together, they could fight off attackers stronger than each of them, and, conversely, attack others stronger than them. There is no reason why this group of two couldn't grow further: into a large group. By co-operating, they could live much closer together, and their lives would be easy. They would win the evolutionary race - either by killing others off or by simply surviving better, or most likely a combination thereof. This is primitive morality. It is co-operation directed at the in-group, and hostility towards outsiders who are not part of the group. The in-group agrees upon laws, such as don't kill each other, don't steal each other's stuff and so on.

That idea can account for, easily, the fact that humans co-operate with each other.

Now, to the question, I see a girl in a dark alley, I could rape her without ever being found out, why not do it? The answer is "What kind of person would do that?", and I don't mean to be facetious. A person who rapes girls in dark alleys is not the kind of person who functions well in a co-operative society. Even if we do not see them raping, we might, for example, see that they care little for others. We do not like people like that. Even if they occasionally manage to spread their genes by raping, they struggle to spread them any other way, because they're, simply, a jerk. Our culture has evolved so that we are taught to feel guilty when we do something wrong. Any person who isn't a jerk has a massive disincentive for raping the girl in the alley - we'll feel terrible about it. That's a far better reason not to rape someone than spreading your genes is a reason to rape someone.

This explains the origins of morality, and gives a satisfying answer to what morality actually is - it is the rules that have evolved under which our society can function. It is not a subjective morality, because you can't say "According to my conception of morality, lying and being selfish is a good thing." It is objective - the obvious parts of the morality are written into law, and the subtle aspects can be found out by studying about how we interact with each other. The only thing it is not is absolute, and this is a good thing. There are times when it is acceptable to lie, such as to protect someone from being murdered. There are times when it is aright to kill - such as when it is necessary to save your own life, someone elses's, or in defence of other ideals we believe in, such as freedom. (I assume you don't believe in absolute morality either. Sometimes, lying, stealing, or killing is a lesser evil than the alternatives. Were the Allies right to stand up to the Nazis, for example?)

David Hume stated that, you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." I have clearly outlined the "is." I doubt there is much controversy about it, except in the details. The question of what ought morality be is different. I won't address it unless you wish me to. I think I have said enough to answer your question. I could also go on the attack about your idea of what morality is, but I'll skip that over. Do you understand why an atheist wouldn't rape that girl in the alleyway?

[MariaEvri]

There is something more and the Holy Bible offers us just that. It offers us an objective set of morals

yeaaaah unfortunately, it doesnt offer us a euro converter, so I have no idea how much I will sell my daughter if I ever have one. Any help pls? I really want to know!
I am a woman.. so can I own a slave? I dont remember if this is covered.. Maybe Ill get married and ask my husband to buy me a couple.
AH also.. my dad's wife.. poor woman she has to work on saturdays.. ehm.. do I have to stone HER or bypass that and stone her boss? I really want to save her soul. Poor woman
One more thing. This friend's friend, is a hardcore christian and YET she eats shellfish, even when she claims she is fasting! Is it up to me to punish her, or should I leave this to god? what do you think?  I think maybe a warning from me should work
Also.. I wear glasses... Will I have to have a laser surgery If I want to approach the altar?
I also had a laser therapy for my body hair growth. Should I quit now?? I am altering the way god made after all. Im so sorry...

oh please PLEASE reply.. I want to be a good moral person and since you say you are a know-it-all you definitely can help me!!

[Squid]

...didn't you start like two other threads that you haven't addressed yet?

[Tanker]

...didn't you start like two other threads that you haven't addressed yet?

Check out the times of his posts today. 2 long posts in under a minute...well within the same minute. It seems to me hes a cut-and-paste-warrior-for-christ aka spammer.

[curiosityandthecat]

Check out the times of his posts today. 2 long posts in under a minute...well within the same minute. It seems to me hes a cut-and-paste-warrior-for-christ aka spammer.

Probably because it is copypasta:

• http://www.carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
• http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091013080048AAXWPvG (see Thus Sayeth the Lord commenter)
• http://www.nntpnews.net/f4516/failure-atheism-account-morality-11802845/
• http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=5022036305&topic=18168

[Recusant]

Hello, pj084527.  Whether you're a spam evangelist or not, I already wrote a response, so I'll post it...

As has been pointed out by Tanker and curiosityandthecat, this is an issue that's been explored in depth here previously.  A number of times.  If it were a doggie chew toy, it's stuffing would be spread around the room, and it would be a small pile of saliva drenched debris in a corner.  Since when has that stopped any self respecting canine from giving it another go, though?  As that great philosopher George Clinton put it: "Just the dog in me. Nothin' but the dog in me."

 

True morals are those that are based outside of yourself, it is not merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it helps stop the guy with the gun from taking your food and your life. There is something more and the Holy Bible offers us just that. It offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc.

Well that's fine.  It's the "etc." at the end of your sentence which makes for some troublesome realities.   As has been pointed out by MariaEvri, the character of God, as delineated in the book you admire so much, actually leaves a lot to be desired.  Even YHVH's supposedly kinder gentler "son" advises his followers, unequivocally, to hate their families.  (Luke 14:26)  You can give all the fancy interpretations of that passage you want.  It says what it says, though, and not what some interpreter would like to make it say.  It's not hard to find passages in your sacred book that can be used to justify some pretty reprehensible behavior.  So your vaunted objective morality isn't all that great. A lot of evil has been visited on the world by people who believed in their hearts that they were doing the right and moral thing.  They were conforming to objective morality as expounded in the bible.  Were they wrong or right?  "Objectively," if they were following the word of your god as expressed in the bible, they were right.  No one has any authority to condemn their actions, because only your god can do that, but he isn't talking.  

Regarding your sordid hypothetical case, the Christian rapist knows that his god will forgive him no matter what he does to his victim, because the only "unforgivable sin" is to deny that god.  So why not go ahead and yield to the impulse to commit some horrible act?  The god's son has already paid for it, after all.  Indeed, it might be some part of the god's inscrutable "greater plan" for the despicable act to take place.  No comfort, and no safety for the victim just because the rapist happens to be Christian.

As for atheism having morals to offer, you're out of luck pal.  As you so perceptively pointed out: "Atheism can't help us here."  Atheism is not a set of moral guidelines, and no one has ever said that it is, as far as I know.  And while I don't particularly agree with Mr Jack's take on "objective morals," I'm content to have you discuss his theory for now, should you actually bother to return and see what sort of responses you've gotten.  Mine can wait for another day.

[karadan]

I was going to type something but you guys already covered it. So i'll just post this, then.

[Whitney]

Atheists, please answer my question and try to explain to me what morals do you have to offer.

I'm not going to waste my time until you stop spam posting new topics to this forum.  The questions has been answered more than once elsewhere on HAF.

Please note that if you post any new topics without first addressing responses to your other topics that you will be given another strike and then banned if it continues after that.

[Whitney]

There is something more and the Holy Bible offers us just that. It offers us an objective set of morals

I think someone needs to learn what objective means.

[McQ]

Shall we call this Strike 2 then?

[Whitney]

Shall we call this Strike 2 then?

I skipped the optional friendly warning steps...so probably just call it strike 1.

[McQ]

Shall we call this Strike 2 then?

I skipped the optional friendly warning steps...so probably just call it strike 1.

Okay. Very fair of you. Yet another reason to like you.  

[Kylyssa]

I'd just like to mention that the Code of Hammurabi substantially predates the Bible and it was a compilation of laws written down by human lawmakers.  

Also, if morality is objective then why can't any two Christians agree on what is moral?