The Moral Irresponsibility of Religion

[Voter]

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

So why is violence evil?

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?

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.

[Voter]

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.

[Whitney]

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.

[Whitney]

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.

[ablprop]

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.

[Inevitable Droid]

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?

[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  

[Davin]

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.

[Stevil]

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.

[ablprop]

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?

[Inevitable Droid]

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.

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

Individual morality is subjective.

On 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.

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.

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.

[metaed]

"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.

[Stevil]

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.