Happy Atheist Forum

A monologue I wrote recently:

 :bananacolor:  :devil:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciscoop.com%2Fimages%2Fatheist-scientists.jpg&hash=ef5858b69538014bd3656b878c90edf692b2d27b)

Pretty good stuff...and I like the poster too... :thumbup:

Did you ever read "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz"? I remember this distinctly. I was in 4th grade, and our teacher read these words, of the Tin Man after he stepped on a beetle:

Thereafter he walked very carefully, with his eyes on the road, and when he saw a tiny ant toiling by he would step over it, so as not to harm it. The Tin Woodman knew very well he had no heart, and therefore he took great care never to be cruel or unkind to anything.

“You people with hearts,” he said, “have something to guide you, and need never do wrong; but I have no heart, and so I must be very careful.”

I think we atheists are like the Tin Man. Also like Joe in Joe vs. the Volcano, who said, "I have no people of my own. I'm my only hope for a hero." We know that meaning comes from within ourselves. There's great power in that, and also great responsibility. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Those dancing bananas. They hurt my eyes.

Hello and welcome to HAF, MCcoins.  Very nice opening post.  I don't agree with all of the points you make, but it was a fine read; thank you.  I'm only going to look at one issue for now:

Quote from: "MCcoins"An atheist understand that "evil" human actions are biological, evolved mechanisms to keep us safe from predators.

Some atheists may look at the world that way, but I've encountered people who seem motivated by malevolence for it's own sake.  Living comfortably, with no threats to that comfort, such a person may still lash out and be pleased when their efforts are rewarded by anguish and dismay on the part of their chosen target.  Now, one might say that this is merely an aberration, a deviant twisting of some survival mechanism.  It's hard to argue that such a view is incorrect, yet it seems to me that to blame willfully harmful behavior on an atavistic impulse gone wrong is too lenient a view.  Some people are just assholes. That quality no doubt conferred an advantage for some during the evolution of our species, so it wasn't entirely pruned off. In my personal experience, it's not rare to find that an asshole's father is an asshole, and they both do very well in life.

Again, welcome.  I hope you enjoy your time reading and posting here.(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F860%2Fsmilew.gif&hash=8238eab24d16418eb1c8cd60d971239ab1363c74)

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "MCcoins"An atheist understand that "evil" human actions are biological, evolved mechanisms to keep us safe from predators.

Quote from: "Recusant"It's hard to argue that such a view is incorrect, yet it seems to me that to blame willfully harmful behavior on an atavistic impulse gone wrong is too lenient a view.

I agree.  Mosquitoes evolved, yet we swat them.  Tapeworms evolved, yet we extract them and make them die.

QuoteSome people are just assholes. That quality no doubt conferred an advantage for some during the evolution of our species, so it wasn't entirely pruned off. In my personal experience, it's not rare to find that an asshole's father is an asshole, and they both do very well in life.

So have the wise observed for thousands of years.  I will add only that asses are made for kicking.

Some would have it that whatever evolved, because it evolved, must be taken as good, or at least neutral.  This is the danger inherent in positing, first, moral good and evil, and secondly, trying to take our morals from science.  If we reject moral good and evil, and instead calibrate our compasses on practical good and evil, we never will blunder into mental terrain where asses can be viewed as other than kickable.  Moreover, if practical good is our true north, then science will only help us, never hinder us, for science is the treasure map by which we locate hidden chests overflowing with practical good.  The treasure, of course, is knowledge, the goodliest of goods.

Quote from: "Recusant"Some atheists may look at the world that way, but I've encountered people who seem motivated by malevolence for it's own sake.  Living comfortably, with no threats to that comfort, such a person may still lash out and be pleased when their efforts are rewarded by anguish and dismay on the part of their chosen target.

I agree entirely, some people are just evil mother f---ers.  I believe the "lust for blood" you describe was greatly advantageous for our ancestors, given their harsh environment.  Those creatures more willing to commit violence had a better chance to survive than their victims, in a sense.  Also, our species' history is filled with tribal battle, and natural selection always favors the battle victor.  Rape in our early history plays greatly in my opinion to the procreation of violent genes.  Even to this day, occupiers and invaders will take the women of the land by will or force.

The point I was trying to make is that religion describes good/evil as something external, therefore making you less responsible for it.  Placing the struggle between good and evil outside of one's control and into an imaginary deity is a dangerous thing to do.  Thinking that evil is a cosmic force makes it more intimidating, and harder to grapple with.  (Think of the Witch Hunts, and imagine if those responsible didn't believe that an evil force called "Satan" could have minions or "witches")  Evolutionists can see the signs of anger arising within himself, and we better understand the consequences of our actions as permanent on Earth, and not something that can be washed away by asking God for forgiveness.  We are all in some degree of control of our emotions, I feel that religion makes people more prone to give in to those first hints of rage.  Personally, the "evil" in my own heart is easier to grapple with now that I understand its roots.

Christianity provides a "get out of hell free card" because Jeebus died for our sins.  I find it repulsive that after describing the proper way to live a Christian life, the book provides an all-encompassing shortcut to "heaven" that is moot in regards to morality.  To think that all the evils a man can endure to other humans can be wiped clean, this doesn't keep people from "sinning" in fact it encourages it.  No one is the same, but when I was a Christian I remember literally promising God that I would repent after I stole something.  I also find it sickening that Jeebus is supposed to set an example of "what we deserve" for our sinful nature that was (according to the Bible) entirely involuntary.

People often make the argument that atheists have better morality simply by looking at the concentration of religion in prisons.  In America, atheists make up 8-16% and Christians more than 70%.  In prison, less than 1% of the prison inmates are atheists, while Christianity still makes up over 70%.  I make the argument that religion is appealing to those of lower fiscal standing.  I follow the view that crime is caused by poverty and harsh living conditions.  These people live difficult lives and religion appeals to that.  The book of Job describes the ultimate suffering, and Jeebus sets the example of how much suffering we "deserve".  As a result, a person living through daily trials of trying to feed his/her family tells themselves "it could be much worse".  I don't make it a point to harass people who turn to God because their lives are difficult.  I understand it really can help people living difficult lives keep their heads on their shoulders.

Thank you for the feedback, it was very insightful.

-Eric

Quote from: "MCcoins"Religion causes moral irresponsibility because it places the battle between good and evil above one's existence. Those of the religious persuasion believe that good and evil are cosmic forces that are constantly at war (God vs. Satan), therefore removing the "first person" perspective of good and evil.

While Biblically there are unseen forces of good and evil at war, that doesn't put us out of the battle. See Eph 6:10-17, where Christians are described as participating soldiers, not passive observants.

QuoteAn atheist must come to bear with his/her own faults and deal with the problems he/she faces as a result of their actions.

Theists also have worldly consequences for their actions.

QuoteIt is, in my opinion, more responsible to be an atheist because you and only you are responsible for your actions.

It is IMO less of a responsibility to be an atheist because you have the final say in what is moral or immoral.

Quote from: "Voter"It is IMO less of a responsibility to be an atheist because you have the final say in what is moral or immoral.

How is having to think for yourself and come to your own decisions about what is right and wrong less of a responsibility? The logic isn't following.

Quote from: "Voter"While Biblically there are unseen forces of good and evil at war, that doesn't put us out of the battle. See Eph 6:10-17, where Christians are described as participating soldiers, not passive observants.

The term "soldiers" gives me chills because it implies war, which religion promotes.  The idea that we are locked in a cosmic battle between good and evil is unsettling.

Quote from: "Voter"Theists also have worldly consequences for their actions.

Indeed for their actions, I worry about where they believe evil comes from.  They believe the source of evil is external not internal, which drains responsibility.  If one harms another, they must simply pray for forgiveness after the fact, and possibly apologize to the person involved.  What good does that do in ridding the world of "sin"?  I make the argument that atheists, being more in-tune with their biological instincts, are better at understanding the "evil" in their hearts, making them less vulnerable to commit violence.

Quote from: "Voter"It is IMO less of a responsibility to be an atheist because you have the final say in what is moral or immoral.

As if the Bible is any better?  Rape, we can all agree, is a serious problem. So what does the Holy Bible say about it?
Judges 5:30
Judges 21:10-24
Exodus 21:7-11
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Zechariah 14:1-2

These are just a few verses that refer to rape as "ok".  God even assists with it in some cases.  Considering how rape is such a horrendous crime, wouldn't you expect that "Thou Shalt not Force Thyself onto Another" or "Thou shalt not rape" would have been in the 10 commandments?  No, because it was "normal" back then.  Our consciousness as a species evolves as does our morality.  Man kind does not need a benevolent deity staring us down from outer space for us to live moral lives.  I wonder about the state of your mentality if you think that we need god to tell us not to murder each-other.  Our species doesn't tolerate murder to this day, not because god told us, but because we know its wrong.  Think of all the other places in the world that have harsh punishments for murder, without being Christian?  If people welcomed killers into their community, no one would have survived.  Those more willing to exile/execute murderers lived to pass on their genes.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"How is having to think for yourself and come to your own decisions about what is right and wrong less of a responsibility? The logic isn't following.

I'm not speaking of the process of reaching a moral code. In that regard, the Christian has the responsibility to read and consider the Bible at the very least. The atheist has no such responsibility. While he has the option of contemplating right and wrong, he doesn't have to do so.

But, my point regarded responsibility to the resulting code. The atheist, having no text which he must reconcile to, has greater freedom to tailor the code to his pre-existing desires. Hence, less real responsibility.

Quote from: "MCcoins"The term "soldiers" gives me chills because it implies war, which religion promotes.  The idea that we are locked in a cosmic battle between good and evil is unsettling.

All moral issues are unsettling. THey wouldn't be moral issues otherwise.

QuoteIndeed for their actions, I worry about where they believe evil comes from.  They believe the source of evil is external not internal, which drains responsibility.  If one harms another, they must simply pray for forgiveness after the fact, and possibly apologize to the person involved.  What good does that do in ridding the world of "sin"?  I make the argument that atheists, being more in-tune with their biological instincts, are better at understanding the "evil" in their hearts, making them less vulnerable to commit violence.

I'm surprised that you believe that people are inherently internally evil.

QuoteAs if the Bible is any better?  Rape, we can all agree, is a serious problem. So what does the Holy Bible say about it?
Judges 5:30
Judges 21:10-24
Exodus 21:7-11
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Zechariah 14:1-2

These are just a few verses that refer to rape as "ok".

No, they aren't. We can discuss singly if you like.

QuoteGod even assists with it in some cases.  Considering how rape is such a horrendous crime, wouldn't you expect that "Thou Shalt not Force Thyself onto Another" or "Thou shalt not rape" would have been in the 10 commandments?  No, because it was "normal" back then.  Our consciousness as a species evolves as does our morality.  Man kind does not need a benevolent deity staring us down from outer space for us to live moral lives.  I wonder about the state of your mentality if you think that we need god to tell us not to murder each-other.  Our species doesn't tolerate murder to this day, not because god told us, but because we know its wrong.  Think of all the other places in the world that have harsh punishments for murder, without being Christian?  If people welcomed killers into their community, no one would have survived.  Those more willing to exile/execute murderers lived to pass on their genes.

Why don't you consider rape to merely be a method of passing on one's genes? Why did evolution make men on average larger and stronger than, and hence able to overpower, women? If a rapist made this argument, how would you refute it?

Quote from: "Voter"I'm surprised that you believe that people are inherently internally evil.

Yes but it is biological.  We are evil because our ancestors were violent, it helped them survive.

QuoteWhy don't you consider rape to merely be a method of passing on one's genes? Why did evolution make men on average larger and stronger than, and hence able to overpower, women? If a rapist made this argument, how would you refute it?

Are you purposefully misinterpreting my statements?  Rape, while horrendous, did perpetuate genes in our ancestry.  Our past is cloaked in tribal warfare between men, the stronger ones survived and copulated with the victim population.  You make a moot point.

Quote from: "Voter"All moral issues are unsettling. THey wouldn't be moral issues otherwise.

You are bloody stupid.  There is no cosmic war between the forces of good and evil.  Thinking there is an unseen war between demons and angels is insane.  Good and evil take place on a personal level in individuals, externalizing the battle makes people less responsible.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "MCcoins"

QuoteAs if the Bible is any better?  Rape, we can all agree, is a serious problem. So what does the Holy Bible say about it?
Judges 5:30
Judges 21:10-24
Exodus 21:7-11
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Zechariah 14:1-2

These are just a few verses that refer to rape as "ok".

No, they aren't. We can discuss singly if you like.

You're just going to give bullshit rationalization for why those passages say that rape is okay, I bet.

Quote from: "MCcoins"Yes but it is biological.  We are evil because our ancestors were violent, it helped them survive.

So why is violence evil?

QuoteWhy don't you consider rape to merely be a method of passing on one's genes? Why did evolution make men on average larger and stronger than, and hence able to overpower, women? If a rapist made this argument, how would you refute it?

Are you purposefully misinterpreting my statements?  Rape, while horrendous, did perpetuate genes in our ancestry.  Our past is cloaked in tribal warfare between men, the stronger ones survived and copulated with the victim population.  You make a moot point.[/quote]
You don't answer the question. If a rapist made this argument, how would you refute it? He could claim that your answer supports his behavior.

Quote from: "MCcoins"You are bloody stupid.  There is no cosmic war between the forces of good and evil.  Thinking there is an unseen war between demons and angels is insane.  Good and evil take place on a personal level in individuals, externalizing the battle makes people less responsible.

Thinking that there is good and evil on a personal level can likewise be termed insane.

Consider a social species which has an alpha male. If another male sneaks a mating in with a female, we don't call it rape or adultery. If the alpha male discovers this and kills the other male or his offspring, we don't term it murder or infanticide. They're just doing what they do.

Quote from: "MCcoins"

Quote from: "Voter"All moral issues are unsettling. THey wouldn't be moral issues otherwise.

You are bloody stupid.  There is no cosmic war between the forces of good and evil.  Thinking there is an unseen war between demons and angels is insane.  Good and evil take place on a personal level in individuals, externalizing the battle makes people less responsible.

Not going to issue an official warning since I'm pretty sure this is a first offense; but please (and this goes for everyone) remember that HAF rules do call for civility.  It may be helpful to keep in mind that smart people can compartmentalize ideas that are irrational or that sound silly to others.  Civil discussions increase the chance of getting through to those which you think hold onto unreasonable ideas and generally make the discussions more palatable too.

Quote from: "Voter"Consider a social species which has an alpha male. If another male sneaks a mating in with a female, we don't call it rape or adultery. If the alpha male discovers this and kills the other male or his offspring, we don't term it murder or infanticide. They're just doing what they do.

For the record...I call it rape.  

While I don't know a lot about all species I don't think it would be wrong of me to assume that very few animals besides Humans, other large primates, elephants, and dolphins have the emotional capacity to carry unseen scars from rape, loosing family etc.  Adding in emotions and culture is where we start to see ethics come into play.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"How is having to think for yourself and come to your own decisions about what is right and wrong less of a responsibility? The logic isn't following.

I'm not speaking of the process of reaching a moral code. In that regard, the Christian has the responsibility to read and consider the Bible at the very least. The atheist has no such responsibility. While he has the option of contemplating right and wrong, he doesn't have to do so.

But, my point regarded responsibility to the resulting code. The atheist, having no text which he must reconcile to, has greater freedom to tailor the code to his pre-existing desires. Hence, less real responsibility.

This is your opinion, which I do not share. I of course speak only for myself, but as myself I say that any atheist who does not take very seriously the responsibility of forming a moral code is in fact immoral. Even those who do take on the responsibility, but come up with the wrong answer (Stalin, for instance) are immoral. Morality is a very serious thing. Anyone who comes to atheism for freedom from morality has come for the wrong reason. And I will not shy away from saying so. There is such a thing as objective morality, and I know it when I see it.

God was wrong to kill the first-born children of Egypt
Abraham was wrong to follow God's orders to sacrifice Isaac
The Brooklyn Dodgers were wrong to move to LA.

There's probably a few more, but that's enough for now.

Quote from: "ablprop"There is such a thing as objective morality, and I know it when I see it.

If knowing it when you see it is your whole argument, you strongly imply what many of us assert, namely, that all morality is subjective.  Got any other arguments?

Tell me something you think is morally wrong, and I'll tell you if I agree or disagree.

If I agree, then you're correct. It is morally wrong.

If I disagree, then you're mistaken.

Simple  

Quote from: "ablprop"Tell me something you think is morally wrong, and I'll tell you if I agree or disagree.

If I agree, then you're correct. It is morally wrong.

If I disagree, then you're mistaken.

Simple  

I think that sounds an awful lot like confirmation bias.

Quote from: "ablprop"There is such a thing as objective morality, and I know it when I see it.

ablprop, I am not in harmony with the cosmos and hence am struggling to align with objective morality can you please help me and refer to a publication detailing each of the morals of objective morality.

Can you please also refer me to the objective morality weighting table and consequence table as I assume morals are not weighted equally and that there must be appropriate consequences with regards to each immorality.

I presume there is a way for me to atone for my past immoralities in regards to avioding the consequences otherwise it is already too late for me so there must be an atonement document with weightings as well. I am hoping with regards to atonement I don't have to remember all of my past immoralities, my memory isn't that good.

BTW have these documents been signed off by all authorities just to ensure they are objective? I wouldn't want to be working towards a moral life if the guidlines are incorrect.

To Stevil, Davin, and Inevitable Droid,

I seem to have said something you don't like.

My point was made to a theist who was making the tired claim that atheists are immoral (or amoral, I suppose, would be a better term).

I disagree with this. Because we don't have an outside authority to tell us what to do, we each have to decide on our own morality. However, we atheists also must be free (as individuals) to declare certain things immoral. On some points, almost all of us will agree. On others, we will be split. That's what makes life interesting.

But I'm willing to bet that all three of you would agree with the following:

It is immoral to kill your child because God (or any other being) told you to do it.

Am I wrong?

Quote from: "ablprop"Because we don't have an outside authority to tell us what to do, we each have to decide on our own morality.

And that makes it subjective, which is all any of us are saying.  You can have your morality if you want it.  But you can't claim it to be objective unless it rests on some foundation outside your own head.

QuoteHowever, we atheists also must be free (as individuals) to declare certain things immoral.

Individual morality is subjective.

QuoteOn some points, almost all of us will agree. On others, we will be split. That's what makes life interesting.

It also makes life subjective.

QuoteBut I'm willing to bet that all three of you would agree with the following:

It is immoral to kill your child because God (or any other being) told you to do it.

You'd be wrong in my case.  Killing your own child would typically be insane, stupid, grotesque, pathetic, horrific, and vile - but it wouldn't be immoral because that word has no bearing on anything empirical.  You can say the leprechauns don't approve, but all you'd really be saying is that you don't approve - and you're not the boss of me, nor am I the boss of you.

Fortunately, we don't need leprechauns looking over our shoulders.  All we need is our instinctive aversion to practical evil, to earthly harm inflicted on non-threatening earthly creatures.  Instinct is subjective, but it's still a solid anchor and an accurate compass for the sane and competent among us.  Sanity and competence are also subjective, incidentally.

Let's don't kill our kids.  But also, let's don't pretend there's a silver pot filled with morality hovering up in the clouds, or buried under the roots of a tree, or sitting at the end of the rainbow, or drifting along the ocean floor with blind crustaceans to guard it.

"It is the role of unbelievers to force religions to be benign." ---Martin Marty

There is atheist morality contrasted with religious morality in a nutshell.

Quote from: "ablprop"It is immoral to kill your child because God (or any other being) told you to do it.

Am I wrong?

There are cases where the Doctor has advised the parents to give consent to turn life support off and hence to kill their child. I certainly would not deem those that chose to turn it off immoral. ablprop you are falling into a trap that theists often do. There is no black and white, just shades of grey. Each situation deems some independant thought rather than refering to scriptures or spiritual advisers or objective morality for guidance.
Atheists have more independance than some theists and hence more responsibilities, some theists bestow some of their responsibilities onto their faith, church, spiritual advisors, objective morality for them is simply the combination of faith and church.