Immorality & Atheism

[showmeproof]

That's an appeal to consequence which is really the only recourse for atheists and carries its own problems, namely that everything becomes permissible so long as one can avoid or doesn't mind the negative consequences. An obligation, on the other hand, is something we ought to do regardless of the consequences and is predicated on the existence of a moral authority. There is literally no logical way to get from "if the premises of atheism are true" to "therefore, moral obligation exists".

Yes it is consequentialism. However, getting away with something directly implies that it is not permitted; i.e. the action you engaged in is judged impermissible by the group. As far as not minding the negative consequences that may lead to an individual going rogue and killing etc., but the consequences are still paid; i.e. the action, to kill in this instance, is not permitted by the group. One is still held to the agreed upon rules (including castigations)of the group. People commit crimes all the time feeling justified in their actions whether it is stealing food to stave off starvation from their kids (still immoral technically) or become vigilante taking the life their daughter's rapist etc. The group does not allow individuals to take the law into one's own hand. We spend a great deal of resources prosecuting the thief and murderer in the previous examples. We also spend a great deal of money and energy prosecuting small offenses (we're willing to put more into the punishment than a crime might licit...try stealing a pack of baseball cards from walmart). The moral authority is the group and the agreed upon rules whether norms or laws is where the 'ought' is derived. That might not be the ideal situation you would like, but it is how real life is played out. This has nothing to do with logical if/then statement you proposed. This is plain observation of how the world actually works.

The question, "does moral obligation exist" is a very facile and misguided query. Obviously moral obligations exist. There are many pointed questions to be asked regarding the subject, like where does this obligation derive from. Your answer is Yahweh. Well, that somehow doesn't account for the great diversity that we see nor our expanding moral circles.

[Tassman]

You have not addressed the issues raised by me in #151 concerning Immorality and Atheism and instead steered our discussion off topic into personal beliefs re Christianity - thus this will be my last post dealing with your diversion.

We have eye witness accounts of the supernatural. It's not my problem if you reject them.

If you are referring to Jesus’ resurrection - that is better stated as “some scholars argue for the existence of eyewitness to the Jesus story. By far the majority of scholars do not.

The question is why you accept the alleged eyewitness accounts when the evidence is so poor.

If you could produce the body of Christ christianity would be false and I would stop believing.

Certainly it would be the death blow for the orthodox form of Christianity. But it would not affect many of the other forms of early Christianity such as the view held by Jesus’ brother James, Peter, and the Ebonite’s, which wasn’t concerned with a physical resurrection. And also by the early Gnostic Christians who believed that the resurrection was spiritual.

Perhaps, the form of Christianity that eventually dominated by the 4th and 5th centuries, when Christian doctrine and the canon of the New Testament were finally consolidated, was the wrong version.

1. I can post where and when I want.

If you choose to post in Apologetics then you should be prepared to argue your case. That’s what Apologetics is.

2. Why do you want to argue a topic that you've argued with Christians about before? You choose to reject smarter Christians than me here so how could I convince you?

Because I consider that these “smarter Christians” were wrong. And I am not seeking to be convinced – I am seeking to convince you. Or are you saying that your mind is closed on the subject of your religion?

3. It's disingenuous for your side to argue the same points over and over as if you haven't been answered. I find that very dishonest and I don't have the patient for it.

But I have received nothing like convincing answers – quite the reverse. That’s the point.

“An answer” presented by Christians usually means an answer satisfactory to them, as believing Christians – with all their supernatural pre-suppositions – not non-theists.

It is not dishonest to press Christians to answer questions basic to their faith. And when you say you “don’t have the patience” you really mean that you are unable to answer the questions – in which case you should consider why you believe in it.

I already told you Norman Geisler wrote "When Critics Ask" that answers every alledged Bible error. It's not my problem you reject Biblical inerrancy. Perhaps you could start another thread on alledged Bible contradictions(as if there haven't been enough) and I can repeat the answers you've already heard and you can reject them again.

You can accept Norman Geisler’s rationalizations if you choose, provided you understand that it’s a minority position and that inerrancy is rejected by the vast majority of competent biblical scholars. And I’ve already outlined the intellectually dishonest methodology suggested by Gleason Archer's ‘New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties’- and most inerrancists trying to justify their stance.

The fact that such inventive and strained harmonizations are even necessary indicates the contradictory nature of the NT books.

More to the point the early church never regarded scripture as inerrant – this is a relatively new concept.

[wonbyone]

You have not addressed the issues raised by me in #151 concerning Immorality and Atheism and instead steered our discussion off topic into personal beliefs re Christianity - thus this will be my last post dealing with your diversion.

I don't care when your last post will be.

If you are referring to Jesus’ resurrection - that is better stated as “some scholars argue for the existence of eyewitness to the Jesus story. By far the majority of scholars do not.

And I accept the Scholars arguments that do.

The question is why you accept the alleged eyewitness accounts when the evidence is so poor.

The evidence is very strong. You accept opinion that Christianity is false. Why is that?

Certainly it would be the death blow for the orthodox form of Christianity. But it would not affect many of the other forms of early Christianity such as the view held by Jesus’ brother James, Peter, and the Ebonite’s, which wasn’t concerned with a physical resurrection. And also by the early Gnostic Christians who believed that the resurrection was spiritual.

What? James and Peter most certainly would not have remained believers if Christ didn't rise from the dead.

Perhaps, the form of Christianity that eventually dominated by the 4th and 5th centuries, when Christian doctrine and the canon of the New Testament were finally consolidated, was the wrong version.

Do you post false falsehoods on purpose? I can see why most Christians here don't take you serious.

If you choose to post in Apologetics then you should be prepared to argue your case. That’s what Apologetics is.

I will argue my case when and if I feel like it.

Because I consider that these “smarter Christians” were wrong.

I've never seen you win a debate with them so perhaps you should humble yourself and conscider the fact that your wrong.

And I am not seeking to be convinced – I am seeking to convince you.

I already told you the only way you could convince me is by producing the body of Christ. I've seen the best of your side lose every time against the likes of WLC and D'souza so your never going to convince me through debate.

Or are you saying that your mind is closed on the subject of your religion?

It is. I have weighed the evidence and found Christianity to be true.

But I have received nothing like convincing answers – quite the reverse. That’s the point.

I think you have received convincing answers but you are your own God and will not bow your knee to your creator.

“An answer” presented by Christians usually means an answer satisfactory to them,

And the same could be said for your side.

as believing Christians – with all their supernatural pre-suppositions – not non-theists.

I don't understand this, no one is born a Christian so I don't know how Christians have supernatural pre-suppositions. In fact I know many Christians who had no supernatural beliefs before conversion.

It is not dishonest to press Christians to answer questions basic to their faith.

When you have already been answered and then pretend you haven't it is.

And when you say you “don’t have the patience” you really mean that you are unable to answer the questions

I mean you are a case in point. I don't think you are seeking answers at all, I think you just keep debating Christians until you find one new to apologetics so feel justified in your beliefs because you won a debate.

– in which case you should consider why you believe in it.

I believe in Christ because I find the evidence for Christianity convincing.

You can accept Norman Geisler’s rationalizations if you choose, provided you understand that it’s a minority position and that inerrancy is rejected by the vast majority of competent biblical scholars.

I do choose inerrancy and the burden of proof is on you to show that the vast majority of Biblical scholars reject inerrancy. Oh I see only "competent" Biblical scholars reject inerrancy?

And I’ve already outlined the intellectually dishonest methodology suggested by Gleason Archer's ‘New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties’- and most inerrancists trying to justify their stance.

I think you and your side are the dishonest ones.

The fact that such inventive and strained harmonizations are even necessary indicates the contradictory nature of the NT books.

Bring them on then? There is an answer for every alledged Bible contradiction.

More to the point the early church never regarded scripture as inerrant – this is a relatively new concept.

Can you back up your assertion with quotes from ECF?

[Tassman]

I don't care when your last post will be.


And I accept the Scholars arguments that do.


The evidence is very strong. You accept opinion that Christianity is false. Why is that?



What? James and Peter most certainly would not have remained believers if Christ didn't rise from the dead.


Do you post false falsehoods on purpose? I can see why most Christians here don't take you serious.



I will argue my case when and if I feel like it.


I've never seen you win a debate with them so perhaps you should humble yourself and conscider the fact that your wrong.


I already told you the only way you could convince me is by producing the body of Christ. I've seen the best of your side lose every time against the likes of WLC and D'souza so your never going to convince me through debate.


It is. I have weighed the evidence and found Christianity to be true.



I think you have received convincing answers but you are your own God and will not bow your knee to your creator.


And the same could be said for your side.


I don't understand this, no one is born a Christian so I don't know how Christians have supernatural pre-suppositions. In fact I know many Christians who had no supernatural beliefs before conversion.


When you have already been answered and then pretend you haven't it is.


I mean you are a case in point. I don't think you are seeking answers at all, I think you just keep debating Christians until you find one new to apologetics so feel justified in your beliefs because you won a debate.


I believe in Christ because I find the evidence for Christianity convincing.



I do choose inerrancy and the burden of proof is on you to show that the vast majority of Biblical scholars reject inerrancy. Oh I see only "competent" Biblical scholars reject inerrancy?


I think you and your side are the dishonest ones.


Bring them on then? There is an answer for every alledged Bible contradiction.


Can you back up your assertion with quotes from ECF?

Most of the above is biased, ignorant, self-serving nonsense, and I suggest you broaden your mind by reading some biblical scholarship that is NOT written by Christian apologists pushing their absurd fundamentalist agenda.

Your personal denigration of me is a standard ploy around here to discredit those who can’t be refuted by argument and you are no exception.

You may not be aware of it but almost every comment in your post is parroting the minority Christian Evangelical position which comprises just 15% of the USA electorate and is barely known outside of America. Majority biblical scholarship disagrees with almost every position it promotes - from biblical inerrancy, to eyewitness accounts, to the several early forms of Christianity, to the dating and authorship of the gospels.

But, more to the point, you are taking the tread way off topic. And you have not addressed the on topic issues raised by me in #151 concerning Immorality and Atheism.

[Mountain Man]

There it is. Your definition of obligation is based on authority. no wonder you can't understand the philosophy of non-theistic ethics. People will feel obligated to principles regardless of the consequences with or without God. An atheist will risk his life to save a drowning child not because he wants to 'appear' moral, not because God told him he ought to, not because of possible consequences negative or otherwise, but because he feels obligated by a principle of reciprocity.

The definition of obligation is "a moral or legal requirement". That's not "my" definition, it's from the dictionary. Can something be morally or legally required without an authority commanding it? For example, would I be legally obligated to drive no faster than 55 miles-per-hour on the freeway if a legal authority hasn't commanded it? I can't see how. Similarly, would I be morally obligated to protect an innocent life if a moral authority hasn't commanded? Again, I can't see how. An atheist might very well feel compelled to save the drowning child in your example, but he is certainly under no moral obligation to do so.

You appeal to reciprocity, but that doesn't advance your argument because reciprocity is actually a teleological -- that is an outcomes based -- approach to ethics and morality, and you're trying to argue as if it's deotological -- that is rules based. Reciprocity essentially says, "I will do X and refrain from Y because doing so has positive consequences." So basically your argument is nothing more than an appeal to consequence which is the only argument you can make that is consistent with atheism.

[wonbyone]

Most of the above is biased, ignorant, self-serving nonsense, and I suggest you broaden your mind by reading some biblical scholarship that is NOT written by Christian apologists pushing their absurd fundamentalist agenda.

Your personal denigration of me is a standard ploy around here to discredit those who can’t be refuted by argument and you are no exception.

You may not be aware of it but almost every comment in your post is parroting the minority Christian Evangelical position which comprises just 15% of the USA electorate and is barely known outside of America. Majority biblical scholarship disagrees with almost every position it promotes - from biblical inerrancy, to eyewitness accounts, to the several early forms of Christianity, to the dating and authorship of the gospels.

But, more to the point, you are taking the tread way off topic. And you have not addressed the on topic issues raised by me in #151 concerning Immorality and Atheism.

Oh the irony!

[shunyadragon]

You argument is basically this: People act in a way that appears moral; therefore, they are naturally obligated to be moral. I can't see how this is anything but a begged question.

You argument is basically this: People act in a way that appears moral; therefore, they are divinely obligated to be moral. I can't see how this is anything but a begged question.

The existence of the natural obligation to be moral is an observed in ALL cultures regardless of whether they believe in God or not, and in higher mammals.

ALL either has evidence of is the appearance of being moral.

[Mountain Man]

Horse pucky. You would defend the proposition that Christianity is good and true because you first assume Christianity is good and true. Your evidence stacks in favour of that assumption.

There's a big difference between formulating a valid argument that leads to a conclusion that you have accepted as true, and formulating an invalid argument that assumes the truth of the conclusion as its premise. If the only way you can arrive at your conclusion of choice is by doing the latter then that's pretty good indication that your conclusion is probably false.

[shunyadragon]

There's a big difference between formulating a valid argument that leads to a conclusion that you have accepted as true, and formulating an invalid argument that assumes the truth of the conclusion as its premise. If the only way you can arrive at your conclusion of choice is by doing the latter then that's pretty good indication that your conclusion is probably false.

. . . and you assume the truth of the argument as its premise. Scientists arrive at the conclusion based on the evidence, not assuming it is true.

[Mountain Man]

You argument is basically this: People act in a way that appears moral; therefore, they are divinely obligated to be moral. I can't see how this is anything but a begged question

So basically you haven't been paying attention. No surprise there.

If you had basic reading comprehension skills then you would know that my actual argument is this: If the premises of Christianity are true then God is a competent moral authority who is qualified to command our obedience; therefore, we are obligated to be moral.

I'm still waiting for one of you dim-bulb atheists to create a similarly valid argument that starts with "If the premises of atheism are true" and concludes with "therefore, we are obligated to be moral." Of course I find it very interesting that instead of trying to defend your bad argument, you instead made a straw man out of mine.

[shunyadragon]

So basically you haven't been paying attention. No surprise there.

If you had basic reading comprehension skills then you would know that my actual argument is this: If the premises of Christianity are true then God is a competent moral authority who is qualified to command our obedience; therefore, we are obligated to be moral.

I'm still waiting for one of you dim-bulb atheists to create a similarly valid argument that starts with "If the premises of atheism are true" and concludes with "therefore, we are obligated to be moral." Of course I find it very interesting that instead of trying to defend your bad argument, you instead made a straw man out of mine.

I have been paying attention. Your whole argument is based on the assumption that the premises of YOUR argument for Christianity and God is true, no other evidence nor valid argument that is not circular. You cannot get any more circular than that. Your reading and logic comprehension skills are at present zero. No surprize there.

The naturalist argument is based on the evidence observed here on earth concerning the nature of morality in humans of many different cultures some believe in god and some do not, and animals.

There is absolutely no evidence that Christianity offers a superior objective morality than other cultures in the history of humanity.

Is your total argument consisting of the assumption of what you believe is true?

Air ball

[showmeproof]

The definition of obligation is "a moral or legal requirement". That's not "my" definition, it's from the dictionary. Can something be morally or legally required without an authority commanding it? For example, would I be legally obligated to drive no faster than 55 miles-per-hour on the freeway if a legal authority hasn't commanded it? I can't see how. Similarly, would I be morally obligated to protect an innocent life if a moral authority hasn't commanded? Again, I can't see how. An atheist might very well feel compelled to save the drowning child in your example, but he is certainly under no moral obligation to do so.

You appeal to reciprocity, but that doesn't advance your argument because reciprocity is actually a teleological -- that is an outcomes based -- approach to ethics and morality, and you're trying to argue as if it's deotological -- that is rules based. Reciprocity essentially says, "I will do X and refrain from Y because doing so has positive consequences." So basically your argument is nothing more than an appeal to consequence which is the only argument you can make that is consistent with atheism.

What a horrendous thing to say. If the power was in your hands to save a child and you did not act, not only would you be fraught with grief you would be looked down upon by your peers and possibly face charges (depending on how the situation played out). I'll let you hesitate and decide if it is commanded of you or not. I'll jump in and attempt to save the child. The very compulsion that you refer to is an onus to act. Human beings can look at a situation they themselves are not in and feel compelled to act; the ability of empathy is what would apply the moral obligation upon you. Everyone who knows the situation would feel that surge of compulsion and then watch you do nothing knowing that you felt the compulsion as well. Luckily we also know the compulsion of fear and the other feelings you might be experiencing during such a situation and we are capable of forgiveness.

I know the post referred to an 'innocent life'. However, do you not see how the compulsion is stronger if it is a child rather than a full grown adult? We have a built in reaction to protect the weak. I guarantee during a situation such as this you will not go through your repository of bible verses to see how to react. You'll act and then interpret your action through the bible verse.

[showmeproof]

So basically you haven't been paying attention. No surprise there.

If you had basic reading comprehension skills then you would know that my actual argument is this: If the premises of Christianity are true then God is a competent moral authority who is qualified to command our obedience; therefore, we are obligated to be moral.

I'm still waiting for one of you dim-bulb atheists to create a similarly valid argument that starts with "If the premises of atheism are true" and concludes with "therefore, we are obligated to be moral." Of course I find it very interesting that instead of trying to defend your bad argument, you instead made a straw man out of mine.

Absolutely nothing about morality requires an obligation to be meted out by a divine arbiter. Nonetheless a competent one....have you read the old testament? Obligation is merely a requirement to act. That requirement can come from anywhere. Theists posit that we are ultimately held responsible of everything by a divine agent. However, find anyone who would argue that humans do not place requirements upon each other. In the here and now, humans make requirements of other humans. The command of obedience in either case is a threat of retribution be it from a divine agent or an institutionalized body of your peers. One may wish that all requirements were commanded by a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent arbiter, but it is superfluous and doesn't match what we observe. As you said, people get away with things, others just don't care about consequences etc. For these cases a theists has to say "Oh yeah, just wait and see whats coming." The way it works in the real world is that we don't care if you don't care about the consequences we throw you in jail, we keep searching for individuals who have gotten away with things (America's Most Wanted List, Interpol etc.). That is how we got Bin Laden, that is how we got General Mladic. In the real world people aren't satisfied with letting people like this go and just wait for some divine arbiter to place judgement upon them. We are driven to ensure that they meet justice within their lifetime...and we often carry the grudges after the person is dead.

[Hamster]

he way it works in the real world is that we don't care if you don't care about the consequences we throw you in jail

Do you think it's right to kidnap someone, take away all of their property, and possibly execute them on the grounds that they didn't do what you wanted them to do? Even if there are 50 people who agree with you? If I force you at gunpoint to bite the head off a mouse are you morally obligated to do it and are you moral for keeping that obligation?

In the real world people aren't satisfied with letting people like this go and just wait for some divine arbiter to place judgement upon them.

I can't speak for other theists but in my view the moral obligation doesn't arise because God will harm you if you don't do what He says. It comes from the nature of the universe and it's relationship to God. If God never lifted a finger in judgment against a single person we'd still have moral obligations because 'oughts' are woven into the fabric of creation which God personally authored it and sustains with his omnipresent brain. Good and evil are real properties, not just breaking rules or opinions enforced by an authority.

If the power was in your hands to save a child and you did not act, not only would you be fraught with grief you would be looked down upon by your peers and possibly face charges (depending on how the situation played out). I'll let you hesitate and decide if it is commanded of you or not. I'll jump in and attempt to save the child. The very compulsion that you refer to is an onus to act. Human beings can look at a situation they themselves are not in and feel compelled to act; the ability of empathy is what would apply the moral obligation upon you. Everyone who knows the situation would feel that surge of compulsion and then watch you do nothing knowing that you felt the compulsion as well. Luckily we also know the compulsion of fear and the other feelings you might be experiencing during such a situation and we are capable of forgiveness.

I'd really like to believe this is true, and it probably is for everyone posting in this thread... but I've seen people watch and laugh as a preteen child was screaming for help before he fell out of a ferris wheel and died. And I've seen them wave goodbye to a gypsy child as it was swept out to sea by the ocean currents. There's also 300 million people in the United States alone that have anti-social personality disorder which leaves them with no ability to feel empathy at all

[Psychic Missile]

You are correct, morality is not a vehicle for material gains, yet that’s not what I said, but it’s my fault for not making the point more clear I guess. I never said morality has anything to do with our drive for getting things. I said the complete opposite, that our drive for getting things, whether necessities or desires, shapes morality. Materialism is not the only thing that shapes moral obligation, but it is a huge factor that can specifically undermine moral judgments that are outside of the law, particularly when there are no other defined external moral obligations. So the fact you believe we are morally obligated only to ourselves is a disaster in the making. If you are in a situation where the moral obligation of your peers puts you at a disadvantage of getting those things, then the logical course of action for you as an atheist is to conform to their morals, otherwise your moral obligation gains you nothing.

I don't understand. Let me try to put your last sentence in an example, and you can tell me if it's apt, regardless of my conclusions.

If I am an accountant and surrounded by other accountants, and everyone but me is embezzling funds, then I am subject to my morality (a combination of nature and nurture), which is influenced by my psychological weaknesses (broken window theory, etc.).

If my morality says that I shouldn't engage in embezzling, I can't then choose to embezzle, because morality is psychology. If my morality succumbs to my weaknesses, and I choose to embezzle, people who aren't in my position have created secular law to protect others from just this kind of thing.

You seem to be under the impression that one can change one's morality to suit one's needs. This simply isn't possible.

And humans generally do NOT follow the same moral guidelines. Moral guidelines can sometimes be broadly agreeable when they are obviously unacceptable like murder or theft, like I said before, and in these cases the community holds each accountable, but this gets extremely diverse and expansive in between the gray area of life’s circumstances and situations, hence the reason we have so many diverse moral opinions that exist between cultural, religious, political, and even social and class lines. If you believe humans generally follow the same moral guidelines, then I’m afraid the discussion can’t continue because you’re building your whole argument on a premise that is false or simply naive.

But what you said is exactly what I meant. The guidelines are things like "don't kill" or "don't steal". It's when we get into gray areas it becomes complicated. In the right scenario most people would say killing or stealing would be the correct action. It's why both Confucius and Jesus came up with the golden rule. It's inherent to the general human psychology.