|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Atheism and Morality
Posted on: March 14, 2007 - 5:17pm
  Offline
Atheism and Morality
http://dmitrychernikov.com/blog/2007/02/26/atheism-and-morality/ Are Christian virtues, on average, superior to atheist virtues? Reply to my contention here or on my blog.
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
I stopped reading after your "piety" paragraph since you're obviously taking no time to argue that piety is actually a virtue and has some worth to it in each of the forms you state without justification.
I wrote an essay on the subject:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5431
I agree with Yiab. Piety is not a virtue. Ayatollah Khomeni was "pious". Piety is for the ignorant. I would call it the worst of sins. A pathetic, sophomoric, intellectual excercise. I genuinely labored to get through that utter rubbish. The Spanish perfecti, overzealous cross-bearing preists who strapped innocents into chains and racks and twisted their limbs off were under the delusion that they were the most moral of men, and doing God's will. They were certianly pious but hardly moral.
Fuck piety.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I believe Atheists are distinctly moral and ethical BECAUSE they don't believe in a higher power. Any bad I do, has consequences here in the only life I have. Those consequences can be incarceration, loss of respect, loss of friends, or money. If I believed I could do whatever I want, then repent, and still enjoy eternal bliss in heaven after my death, why wouldn't I? On the other hand, if I believed that my sins would result in eternal damnation, after one transgression, I would have no motivation to be good.
Responsibility: A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911
And keep in mind that many theists, state that we can still be redeemed, even after committing the most unforgiveable act possible (blaspheming the holy spirit). With that in mind, what act would not be forgiven, and what motivation is there to behave ethically?
Responsibility: A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911
My goodness.
Dmitri is back for another go.
Ok, I'll play. It's been a while, and my patience is at an all time high with spring in the air.
1. Define "Piety."
2. Justify piety as a moral virtue.
3. As a prerequisite to 4, Prove God exists.
4. Demonstrate the validiy of the four levels of piety in light of 1.
5. In light of the following example, justify your definitions of "wisdom."
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
My first instinct is to flippantly suggest there's an incredible similarity between atheism and Christianity in that neither of them has any necessary effect on the morals of its subscribers.
However, this might not be true. I recall a statistic about the prison population. You'd suppose those numbers would be stacked with the most immoral group found in the general population. If that's so, it wasn't terribly flattering to theism, or to Christianity in particular. But, you have to remember that theism usually offers some kind of redemption, leading to prison conversions. You can be "saved" after you've committed your crime, got caught, and have nothing left to lose. Good for you, except everybody's still dead or beaten or robbed.
By contrast, someone who doesn't believe he answers to an imagined higher authority is forced (assuming they're not a sociopath, in which case all bets are off no matter what the philosophy) to answer to his own standards, those of the law, those of his community, those of his family. He can see the consequences of his actions, and he knows there's nothing to magically alter his responsibility for his actions. I would suppose the basic ability to empathize is all that's required for a functioning sense of morals.
Arrogant and down right self centered to perform "charity" because it is "rewarded".
What about people(Atheists) who do works of charity to help their fellow man and not to win brownie points with that magic guy in the sky? To me, this shows the atheists as the more virtuous.
Spot on BGH. I came to an identical conclusion in my essay.
-It is inherently ridiculous to state God as a requisite for morality because if you need a requisite for morality, you are not inherently moral, merely a suck up
I'm sure Christians are very charitable. Especially the ones deluded into thinking they are doing God's work by travelling deep into Nigeria and Kenya and telling terrified families whose lives have been torn asunder by human immunodeficiency virus that condoms are full of holes and don't work because God loves all his children and wants them to have AIDS. But that's OK, because God is wise and mysterious and we cannot understand his ways.
Fuck him
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Wow, even got a little rub in on the jews on top of the atheists, huh. I'm assuming you're using this definition of piety when referring to levels 2-4
pi·e·ty
(pī'ĭ-tē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. pi·e·ties
The state or quality of being pious, especially:
(I've cut out the other definition such as filial piety, etc.)
So, essentially what you're telling me is that a christian who goes out and murders people, or abuses children is more morally virtuous than an atheist who is a contributing member to society and does not commit those heinous acts? Riiight. I'm starting to think that perhaps its a good thing all you people believe in god because it appears you'd be a rather murderous bunch without him.
Piety is not a moral virtue. End of discussion.
I'm not going to dig into your other useless, arrogant and completely baseless arguments. You call atheists arrogant? Perhaps you should reread your little blog.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
> Fuck piety.
So, honoring your parents, your teachers, those who help you, etc. is not for you, I take it.
>And keep in mind that many theists, state that we can still be redeemed, even after committing the most unforgiveable act possible (blaspheming the holy spirit). With that in mind, what act would not be forgiven, and what motivation is there to behave ethically?
An evil act which is performed with a hope that it will be forgiven is not forgiven. On the contrary, the sin is made heavier with the additional sin of presumption. (http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS021.html)
> Justify piety as a moral virtue.
As I wrote, it is a species of justice. Is justice not a virtue, according to you? A very similar argument can be given for the other moral virtues: reverence for the law, temperance, fortitude, and prudence.
> Prove the existence of divine truth
My point exactly. Since you have no inkling of it, your judgment is impaired.
> Prove that Christian Charity is universal.
It's supposed to be. E.g., Love your enemies, the Good Samaritan parable, etc. It may actually function as a ground for utilitarianism.
> Prove that atheist charity is not rewarded.
My atheist uncle has a saying: "No good deed goes unpunished." Maybe you are too young and idealistic to understand.
> I recall a statistic about the prison population.
Christian virtues are superior to atheist virtues as such and on average. It is obviously possible to find a pair of a believer and an unbeliever such that the latter more moral than the former.
> Arrogant and down right self centered to perform "charity" because it is "rewarded".
That is beside the point. I did not say that works of charity should be performed out of a mercenary spirit, although such motivation can be appropriate on a certain temporary stage of spiritual development. The point is that Christian love is rewarded, which makes it superior to the love that is not. Who wouldn't want his good works of mercy to result in his own happiness, if not here then in the hereafter?
> I'm sure Christians are very charitable. Especially the ones deluded into thinking they are doing God's work by travelling deep into Nigeria and Kenya and telling terrified families whose lives have been torn asunder by human immunodeficiency virus that condoms are full of holes and don't work because God loves all his children and wants them to have AIDS.
What of the Christians who are not so deluded? Perhaps despite the mistakes that some Christians make, the maximum virtue they can attain is greater than the maximum virtue an atheist can attain. (Though there is no limit on, e.g., charity, and many virtues obey the doctrine of the mean.) And my point is exactly that: that theists are lifted above their natural capacities.
> So, essentially what you're telling me is that a christian who goes out and murders people, or abuses children is more morally virtuous than an atheist who is a contributing member to society and does not commit those heinous acts?
No, I am certainly not telling you that. Again, I compare the virtues as such and on average. Christian virtues are divine in character; they are enhanced versions of the natural virtues. Thus, for example, prudence deals with the question of what I ought to do to further my own self-interest (which may include the interests of others); atheistic prudence is directed at the happiness possible in this world; Christian prudence concerns the correct actions which lead to salvation and is therefore much more sophisticated.
So that's another unforgiveable sin? Sinning with the hope of redemption. I don't remember that from the bible. And what is a heavier sin? Do I go to a different plane of hell? And if one believes in god, and is aware this sin won't be forgiven, wouldn't that be an impetus to continue sinning, since the soul is lost anyway?
Responsibility: A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911
> So that's another unforgiveable sin?
Temporarily unforgivable, until true repentance. And if one says, "I'll do this evil thing, and 'truly' repent later," he might make things so bad, that God will not believe his later repentance and demand an extraordinary proof of a change of heart. And that extra-hard process of purification is bound to be unpleasant.
> And what is a heavier sin?
Well, murder is a heavier crime than theft, and theft, than speeding. Just as one's guilt and punishment are different in crimes against human laws, so one's guilt may be greater or lesser with respect to violations of the eternal law. A greater crime corrupts the soul more than a small one, and a mortal sin more than a venial sin. Etc.
But Christians don't have arglebargle. Arglebargle is the most highest infinity plus one virtue a person can attain. I can make up fake virtues, too.
From my perspective , TRUE CHARITY, comes from giving of oneself selflessly. Christians cannot ever achieve true charity because appeasing this shithead of a "higher power" is the motivation, not true compassion for your fellow humans.
AND IT IS NOT BESIDE THE POINT, THAT IS THE POINT!!!
> Christians cannot ever achieve true charity because appeasing this shithead of a "higher power" is the motivation, not true compassion for your fellow humans.
This is stupid grotesque slander. Crucial to the moral aspect of Christianity is imitating God Who is holy unconditional Love. The very names of the Holy Spirit are Love and Gift. I have no doubt that you have compassion, but that compassion will always be weaker than it could be were you receptive to grace of God.
Read the Old Testament. God is not Love.
"No good deed goes unpunished." is a joke. A well known joke.
"... more sophisticated." Sorry. I'd say it's much more primitive. "Correct actions that lead to salvation" are rote rules passed down, altered, translated, and often outright created by men in power to control your actions. Sophistication? No. Pure "power over" meant to control the masses. A primitive concept for a primitive people. The fact that Christianity (and other related religions) have not matured and become more sophisticated over the years is one of the many problems I have with it.
Karen and her hounds
creating art ~ creating a new life
So, honoring your parents, your teachers, those who help you, etc. is not for you, I take it.
Idiotic bigot. I live in a secular country. I am nonreligious, my parents, grandparents, teachers, and those who help me are too. Religion is thought of as ridiculous here.
This does not mean that I do not have religious friends and acquintances. I do, however, they are all very well educated liberal intellectual freethinkers. If someone is pious. That is merely another word for blind faith. That is another word for stupidity, ignorance and unreason and illogic. Piety is inherently ridiculous. Furthermore, you did not respond to my comment above:
It is inherently ridiculous to state that God is a requisite for morality because if you require a requisite for morality then you are not moral ipso facto, merely a suck up
Now are you going to read my essay or not? I read yours.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Charity done without reward is infinetly more loving and kind than charity for personal gain or appeasing a diety!
You seem to have a very deluded view of love, respect and piety.
Dmitri, not that I expected anything to be different, but you have only responded with naked assertions, just like last time you haunted the boards for two weeks and skulked away to lick your pwnage wounds.
I'm afraid I'm not even going to get into this with you, because I can see that you have no interest in providing any logical basis for anything you say. You're just going to say it over and over. The chief among your logical fallacies is known as argumentum ad nauseum... and for good reason.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
> "Correct actions that lead to salvation" are rote rules passed down, altered, translated, and often outright created by men in power to control your actions. Sophistication? No. Pure "power over" meant to control the masses.
Can you give a couple of examples of these "rote rules" with which the Catholic Church "controls the masses"?
> Charity done without reward is infinetly more loving and kind than charity for personal gain or appeasing a diety!
What if your "reward" is happiness resulting from the happiness of someone you helped? Or resulting from advancing truth, goodness, beauty, etc.? If you are that kind of person, who has a holy will, isn't your reward legitimate? Further, you still think that merit should not result in heavenly glory. But if people who accomplish much are sometimes celebrated even here on this earth, why shouldn't God celebrate them in heaven?
This is drivel.
When you read these statements back to yourself I am sure they make sense, but I do not see value in what you are saying.
Doing charity to truly help your fellow man is the key. If you get a happy feeling helping people that makes it all the better. Doing to charity for the specific reason of pleasing a diety, showing your magic friend you are holy, or earning a special seat on a cloud is not charity for the right reasons.
"Temporarily unforgivable" = forgivable
Which brings me back to my original point. Xians have at least as much (perhaps much more) freedom to commit immoral acts as atheists. And any "process of purification" or punishment on earth would be well worth the price for eternal salvation. Whether the price is saying a bunch of Hail Marys or the death penalty, eternity is a long time. Atheists, on the other hand, take the consequences of their actions very seriously.
Basically, I believe atheist morality compares very favorably to theist morality. Feel free to respond, Dmitri, but so much has been written on this subject in this post and other posts, I won't be beating this horse any deader.
Responsibility: A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911
econgineer - I was arguing the same point about the high level of believers in prison. Philosophically, an atheist who has committed a crime against his fellow man has no pillowy holy bosom to rest his worried head on. If a person has basic moral principles (which I have yet to see demonstrated to have originated in religious dogma, which is one of the assumptions we're often begged to make) and even a modicum of empathy, they're going to know they've done something wrong. A believer can even things up with his imaginary friend without addressing the consequences of his actions in the real world.
Anyway, OP's arguments are worthless. He picks sentences out of context, and his replies are still incoherent. Maybe he's trying to get hits for his blog full of quasi-philosophical flubbery, but there's nothing new, compelling, or challenging being presented.
> Xians have at least as much (perhaps much more) freedom to commit immoral acts as atheists.
Even if a person can be forgiven, committing immoral acts is always against his own self-interest, which is something I can't say for atheists. But let's turn things around. You claim that the possibility of forgiveness essentially gives Christians an incentive to do evil. I don't think that it does. But does not the impossibility of forgiveness lead atheists to despair? For surely, you have made mistakes in life. You may have objectively harmed either yourself or others, perhaps without knowing it. Can you live with that knowledge and with the burden it entails?
> Atheists, on the other hand, take the consequences of their actions very seriously.
Why? I mean, what is so distinctive about atheism that its adherents are such supremely good people?
> Basically, I believe atheist morality compares very favorably to theist morality.
So you do not buy my contention that Christian morality is deified, in a precise sense, natural morality?
> A believer can even things up with his imaginary friend without addressing the consequences of his actions in the real world.
Where do you get this nonsense? No, a believer cannot "even things up" with God without addressing the consequences of his actions in the real world.
There is no impossibility of forgiveness. There is always a chance that the person that was wronged will forgive me. Of course atheists hurt people, whether intentionally or not. Everyone will at one point in their life hurt another person. If someone forgives, that's great. If they don't, you accept the consequence of your action and move on. I know few non-theists who are completely devasted over something they've done. I will readily admit that I also don't know anyone who has done something really awful, like killing someone.
I can only speak for myself when I say this, but I'm not concerned about god's forgiveness. He really just doesn't exist to me it's that plain and simple when you get down to it. Nor do I need him to exist in my life. I care for my friends and family and obviously would not want to hurt them. And if I do, it is my action and my consequence that will follow. I feel absolutely no despair, nor do I feel any loss whatsoever by not having your god in my life.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
dchernik. I am not invisble
I want you to apologize for your comment about my parents, teachers etc
And I want you to read my essay
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism