Immorality & Atheism

[Tassman]

No. Before I became a Christian I was the center of my universe and I only lived to please me. That is what gave me pleasure. As a Christian Christ is the center of my universe and I live to please him because I love him more than I love myself. I'm not waiting for the reward, I have plenty of that with him right now.

And now that you are a Christian pleasing Jesus pleases you so you are still living to please yourself.

Oh and how do you know that you are pleasing Jesus, rather than just hoping you are pleasing Jesus?

[Darth Ovious]

First, please show me where I got my "backside handed to [me] on a silver plate..."

Sure here's the thread. We start our discussion on page 13 onwards.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...insane!/page13

Second, if you consider my article to be complaining, then I'm not sure if you're having some kind of glitch in your understanding of the difference between complaining and reflection. There is nothing in my article that is a complaint. But thank you for setting this thread up for yet another theist-slings-mud-at-the-nonbelievers campaign. In the future, could you please mind your words a little more? In this instance they have the potential to be unnecessarily destructive.

You were complaining. The op was nothing but a short rant from you declaring "Wah!!!! Why do theists call us atheists immoral"!!!!!!!!!!

[Mountain Man]

No, I do not. Accountability to the community comes from the desire of its members to live a good life. The law is irrelevant.


Everyone is obligated to their own psychology. You can't not be you. So you are obligated to an arbitrary chemical process because your actions are dictated by that arbitrary chemical process.


I qualified my statement by assuming a lack of empathy, which is anther name for the aforementioned arbitrary chemical processes. So your obligation would be towards your own moral compass (actions you are and aren't mentally capable of, the community, and reason (it is unreasonable to kill me and take my stuff).

You have no idea what "obligation" means, do you?

However, you have essentially said that morality is meaningless since nobody is able to do anything other than what they are dictated to do by the chemical process in their brains. So Jeffry Dahmer wasn't acting immorally, he was just being true to himself.

Also, what is unreasonable about killing you and taking your stuff? I can think of a number of scenarios where that would be a perfectly reasonable course of action from a naturalistic standpoint.

[Mountain Man]

It would only be arbitrary if there was no valid reason to recognize God as a competent moral authority.

The dilemma disappears if you accept that morality is simply that which is consistent with God's character and nature and that God is qualified to command our obedience.

Agreed, however I do not believe you have yet substantiated God as a moral authority or that he is qualified to command our obedience (short of force which he clearly does not use).

We can pursue those other issues some other time, but it's enough for the purposes of this thread that you concede the premise "God is a competent moral authority and qualified to command our obedience; therefore, we are obligated to act morally."

Can you think of a similar premise within the atheistic framework that would logically lead to the conclusion "therefore, we are obligated to act morally"?

[wonbyone]

Well, I for instance am agnostic, I have no particular belief in God, yet I could never murder another human being because I consider murder to be immoral in and of itself, without the need of it being an authoritative command. But it seems to me that you are saying that without the authority of God behind it, you would have no qualms with murdering another. In other words the believers morality seems to come from without whereas the nonbelievers morality would seem to come from within. That is what you are saying correct, that if it weren't for the authority behind it, you would be absent of any moral character?

I believe the morality that you say comes from within is from God(see Romans 1-2) irregarldless of your aknowledgement of him. For the most part what kept me from commiting crimes was the fear of the law which is what I believe holds true for most everyone.

Well, I will just be blunt and say that I do not believe that a God spends time with you and speaks to you and calls you his child, not that you are lying, or that you do not believe it yourself, I have no way of knowing that, nor of disproving the assertions of what takes place only in ones mind.

I didn't expect you to believe me I was just answering your question.

But what do you mean that you are not waiting for your reward,

Did you have to wait to have a relationship with your parents? I have a relationship right now with God I'm not waiting for it.

are you not expecting the reward of heaven in return for your obedience and love of God

I am but that is not what motivates me to obey him moraly. I obey him because he loves me and I love him.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I keep reading references to an "atheistic world view" (curiously, not in the main from atheists), but I don't know what an atheistic world view is, or rather, I don't believe that there's any such thing.

My view of the world is informed by the things I believe in, not the things that I lack belief in.

Could someone please point me in the direction of an atheistic world view?

To be brutally honest, I'd prefer it if an atheist could point to one, because I suspect the believers here will just point me towards something like communism, or some other world view which may be compatible with atheism, but which isn't constituted by it.

As far as I can see, atheism contains no warrant for any actions at all, good or bad. It's just a lack of belief in God or gods.

MM

If atheism is true then there's nothing I can deduce from that which would oblige you to refrain from killing me and taking my stuff, but neither is there anything that would oblige you, as a consequence of the 'truth' of atheism, to kill me and take my stuff. From where I'm standing your question makes no more sense than if I were to ask you - "If Christianity is true, then what colour paint should I choose to decorate my lounge with?"

[Mountain Man]

I atheism is true then there's nothing I can deduce from that which would oblige you to refrain from killing me and taking my stuff, but neither is there anything that would oblige you, as a consequence of the 'truth' of atheism, to kill me and take my stuff.

Correct, there is no moral obligation one way or the other if atheism is true. Nevertheless, many atheists live as if they are obligated to act morally and get their nose out of joint when they see others acting immorally. This is irrational and cognitively dissonant.

I wonder who will be the first atheist at tWeb to say, "It was not wrong for Jeffry Dahmer to kill over a dozen people because he had no obligation to do otherwise."

[Adrift]

I keep reading references to an "atheistic world view" (curiously, not in the main from atheists), but I don't know what an atheistic world view is, or rather, I don't believe that there's any such thing.

My view of the world is informed by the things I believe in, not the things that I lack belief in.

Could someone please point me in the direction of an atheistic world view?

To be brutally honest, I'd prefer it if an atheist could point to one, because I suspect the believers here will just point me towards something like communism, or some other world view which may be compatible with atheism, but which isn't constituted by it.

As far as I can see, atheism contains no warrant for any actions at all, good or bad. It's just a lack of belief in God or gods.

Is there such a thing as a "theistic world view"? The definition of a "world view" is simply:
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
Certainly a belief or non-belief in god/s is an idea or belief that forms one's framework of how you interpret and interact with the world. As I've mentioned in previous threads, this idea that atheism is simply a default state of non-belief is recent and wrong.

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took. - Thomas Henry Huxley

Subject: Definition of Atheism, William Lane Craig

...Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.

So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence. He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God...

Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position?... If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?”

© source where applicable

[FarEastBird]

Yes, God condemns people for lacking morality, by which I assume you mean wrongdoing. It's his job.

OK, perhaps I understand why you say "you dont condemn immorality" but "God does." So, what is the difference between morality and immorality, the reasons(s) why God condemns immorality?

Thanks,
FEB

[wonbyone]

And now that you are a Christian pleasing Jesus pleases you so you are still living to please yourself.

My motivation is to please him. My being pleased is a by-product of pleasing him. Tell me when you obeyed your parent's was it to please them or please yourself?

Oh and how do you know that you are pleasing Jesus, rather than just hoping you are pleasing Jesus?

Because I accept the evidence that he is and that the Bible is true.

[Kane]

Sure here's the thread. We start our discussion on page 13 onwards.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...insane!/page13

My questions were not answered to a large degree, and Hamster admitted that he could be wrong about the Christian God based on the epistemological gaps I pointed out. You consider that a situation where my backside was handed to me on a silver platter? I think we have different definitions, to say the least.

You were complaining. The op was nothing but a short rant from you declaring "Wah!!!! Why do theists call us atheists immoral"!!!!!!!!!!

So you're unwilling to accept the obvious reflective tone of the OP, and you're also unwilling to accept my express statement that it was a reflective piece, not a complaint. Sir, you lack integrity.

We're done.

I'll be moving on now.

[Psychic Missile]

We're not obligated to our psychology at all. In fact, many of us were born with or have developed very destructive psychiatric problems. Are we betraying our own biology when we take prozac, anti-psychotics, or tranquilizers?

If not for the fact that one has a psychiatric problem, one wouldn't take medication for it. The medication then alters our psychology, and we are obligated by this new psychology.

But since "living a good life" outside of what is defined as legal is very broad, subjective and varies extremely between different individuals, sometimes whole communities, and even countries, I pose the same question: What if others don’t follow the moral obligation you believe they should, and thus your moral obligation puts you and others at a disadvantage? Where does the rationale for your moral obligation come from?

Well that's a given, even if Christianity were true. What kind of disadvantage are you talking about? The rationale for my moral obligation comes from my own psychology. I act the way I do because of my own moral compass.

You have no idea what "obligation" means, do you?

However, you have essentially said that morality is meaningless since nobody is able to do anything other than what they are dictated to do by the chemical process in their brains. So Jeffry Dahmer wasn't acting immorally, he was just being true to himself.

Also, what is unreasonable about killing you and taking your stuff? I can think of a number of scenarios where that would be a perfectly reasonable course of action from a naturalistic standpoint.

It is true that free will is an illusion, but it is such a good illusion that free will can be assumed to be true for most discussions. A discussion about free will is outside the scope of this thread.

Dahmer was psychologically unsound and his actions threatened the well-being of the members of the community. He was most certainly immoral. Moral judgments require a peer, because morality is about how people interact, so you cannot look at a person's actions as good or bad without considering how they impact others.

Name one scenario.

[Hamster]

If not for the fact that one has a psychiatric problem, one wouldn't take medication for it. The medication then alters our psychology, and we are obligated by this new psychology.

You can't label them "problems" any more than you can label being "gay" or "left handed" a problem. That assumes that there's an objective "right" way for everyone's brain chemistry to be. Also it seems absurd to think we have a moral obligation to prozac

[Darth Ovious]

My questions were not answered to a large degree, and Hamster admitted that he could be wrong about the Christian God based on the epistemological gaps I pointed out. You consider that a situation where my backside was handed to me on a silver platter? I think we have different definitions, to say the least.

Actually, I handed your backside to you on a plate while you stuck your fingers in your ears and went LA LA LA LA LA LA.

Other people can read the thread to see that.

So you're unwilling to accept the obvious reflective tone of the OP, and you're also unwilling to accept my express statement that it was a reflective piece, not a complaint. Sir, you lack integrity.

We're done.

I'll be moving on now.

And yet the very first comments from others stated that you were complaining about an argument that theists don't even make.

[Psychic Missile]

You can't label them "problems" any more than you can label being "gay" or "left handed" a problem. That assumes that there's an objective "right" way for everyone's brain chemistry to be. Also it seems absurd to think we have a moral obligation to prozac

Are you saying psychopathy and sociopathy aren't a mental disorders?

I didn't say we are obligated to prozac. I said we are obligated to our own psychology, and if medication alters our psychology, we are obligated to this new psychology.