The flaws of NT-based morality

[Charles]

Does chucky want a cookie? sit boy.

And you could not answer that one either?

[Sparko]

And you could not answer that one either?

Chuck, when you actually express a stance on something, instead of just making critical snipes and asking dumb questions, I will respond to you seriously. Until then.. well.. woof.

[Charles]

Chuck, when you actually express a stance on something, instead of just making critical snipes and asking dumb questions, I will respond to you seriously. Until then.. well.. woof.

Yeah, that is the easy way to get out of it. But I wonder how long you will keep making a fool of yourself and act in an unworthy manner.

[Sparko]

Yeah, that is the easy way to get out of it. But I wonder how long you will keep making a fool of yourself and act in an unworthy manner.

as long as you do.

[hedrick]

Morality is not about what one prefers, nor is it about obligation, why it matters to the atheist is simply a matter of principle. Apparently christians, or the religious in general, think the only reason for themselves to be morally good persons is if there is an ultimate reward for their behavior. But then again, when you think about it, it is because of such thinking that we had to create gods and ultimate rewards, or punishments, in the first place.

I think the question of the basis for morality is unsolved and possibly unsolvable. But most people seem to be moral because they care about other people, and in general about the consequences of their actions. Someone who lives in fear of being sent to hell if they do the wrong thing is likely to act in a legalistic way, and may well not produce good results for the people around them.

Jesus thought right behavior came from right motivation, from caring about people. How do you produce that kind of thing? I think it's more likely to be produced by inspiring people by good examples and by the love of God than by threatening them. Most of my non-Christian friends care about others also, even though they don't fear God's judgement. I'm not convinced that their actual motivation is all that different from the actual motivations of Christians.

[Tassman]

Morality is not about what one prefers, nor is it about obligation, why it matters to the atheist is simply a matter of principle. Apparently christians, or the religious in general, think the only reason for themselves to be morally good persons is if there is an ultimate reward for their behavior. But then again, when you think about it, it is because of such thinking that we had to create gods and ultimate rewards, or punishments, in the first place.

Yes. Pavlov adopted the same "carrot and stick" approach to train dogs; it's pretty basic. Actual moral principles are instinctive. They're derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and a consequence of natural selection.

[Tassman]

Yeah, that is the easy way to get out of it. But I wonder how long you will keep making a fool of yourself and act in an unworthy manner.

You need to understand that he can’t help it, he’s a Christian. They’re like that. Their MO is denigration in lieu of substantive argument; it’s what happens when one’s beliefs are grounded in fantasy.

[Mountain Man]

Yes. Pavlov adopted the same "carrot and stick" approach to train dogs; it's pretty basic. Actual moral principles are instinctive. They're derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and a consequence of natural selection.

Still doesn't address the problem of moral obligation, which is far more complex and critical than I think any skeptic here appreciates. I'll let Dr. William Lane Craig explain it:

Source: Can We Be Good without God?

Now it is important that we remain clear in understanding the issue before us. The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There is no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally characterize as good and decent lives. Similarly, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely agree. Or again, the question is not: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God? The theist will typically maintain that a person need not believe in God in order to recognize, say, that we should love our children. Rather, as humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz puts it, “The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”

If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

The objective worthlessness of human beings on a naturalistic world view is underscored by two implications of that world view: materialism and determinism. Naturalists are typically materialists or physicalists, who regard man as a purely animal organism. But if man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species. For him to regard human morality as objective is to fall into the trap of specie-ism. On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats. Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something. But without freedom, none of our choices is morally significant. They are like the jerks of a puppet’s limbs, controlled by the strings of sensory input and physical constitution. And what moral value does a puppet or its movements have?

Thus, if naturalism is true, it becomes impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, or love as good. It does not matter what values you choose—for there is no right and wrong; good and evil do not exist. That means that an atrocity like the Holocaust was really morally indifferent. You may think that it was wrong, but your opinion has no more validity than that of the Nazi war criminal who thought it was good.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-w...od-without-god

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

You need to understand that he can’t help it, he’s a Christian. They’re like that. Their MO is denigration in lieu of substantive argument; it’s what happens when one’s beliefs are grounded in fantasy.

Dang it, you found us out. Did you find our secret handbook? We need to hide it better.

I am just treating Charles like he does MM and Seer. Maybe a tad exaggerated to make the point. When he starts contributing substantially to a debate I will take him seriously and treat him respectfully. Same with you. You denigrate Christians in the very statement that you accuse us of using denigration in lieu of substantive argument.

Irony much?

[37818]

Roy,
A note about a fallacy. You can be assured your opponent is loosing an argument when resorting to use of an ad hominem.

[JimL]

Which atheist's principles Jim? Yours? The Stalinist? The Maoist?

Morals are not ours seers, they don't belong to us, they are personal behaviors found to be in the best interests of human society. I didn't say anything about Stalin or Mao. There were many immoral religious figures throughout history as well. Morality need have nothing to do with religion, which is why God need have nothing to do with morality.

[seer]

Morals are not ours seers, they don't belong to us, they are personal behaviors found to be in the best interests of human society. I didn't say anything about Stalin or Mao. There were many immoral religious figures throughout history as well. Morality need have nothing to do with religion, which is why God need have nothing to do with morality.

Jim you said: Morality is not about what one prefers, nor is it about obligation, why it matters to the atheist is simply a matter of principle.

Which atheist are you speaking of and what principle? Are you speaking just for yourself and your principle? Or are you speaking for a Stalinist? Or a Maoist? They too were atheists, they too had their moral principles.

[JimL]

I think the question of the basis for morality is unsolved and possibly unsolvable. But most people seem to be moral because they care about other people, and in general about the consequences of their actions. Someone who lives in fear of being sent to hell if they do the wrong thing is likely to act in a legalistic way, and may well not produce good results for the people around them.

Jesus thought right behavior came from right motivation, from caring about people. How do you produce that kind of thing? I think it's more likely to be produced by inspiring people by good examples and by the love of God than by threatening them. Most of my non-Christian friends care about others also, even though they don't fear God's judgement. I'm not convinced that their actual motivation is all that different from the actual motivations of Christians.

I agree, most non-believers, aka atheists, are just as moral the God believers, but the moral acting believers, unlike the moral acting atheists, need to believe in god in order to behave morally. I hear that from those very believers here on tweb quite often. They argue; 'why should they care about morality if there is no ultimate reward or punishment for their behavior!

[JimL]

Jim you said: Morality is not about what one prefers, nor is it about obligation, why it matters to the atheist is simply a matter of principle.

Which atheist are you speaking of and what principle? Are you speaking just for yourself and your principle? Or are you speaking for a Stalinist? Or a Maoist? They too were atheists, they too had their moral principles.

The moral atheist.

[seer]

The moral atheist.

Well I'm sure the Stalinist and Maoist considered themselves very moral. Serving the greater good of the Collective.