Atheists Are Not Moral People! Get Your Argument On!
A common comment that will be thrown at you when debating or discussing with a theist will be that "if you don't get your morality from god, where do you get your morality" or "are atheists then immoral" or something else of that flavor. There are many way to address these comments such as discussing where morals come from and the definition of morals, which can be tricky, or that morality is intrinsic in each being and you don't need god to have them or that morals preceded religion and there are plenty of examples that can go along with that last point. These can all be very effective but I heard something the other day that I felt made a lot of sense.
When asked "were you a moral person", the person, who was an atheist said, "you're right I'm not moral because morals is a set of behavioral guidelines derived from authority whether real or imagined and I don't use morality in my day to day life to make decisions, however I'm a very ethical person, and I think that social ethics as they evolved out of social dynamics, are a better course to pursue then morality, because if you're being a moral person, and you are doing what the authority has instructed you to do, that authority may not in itself be moral. So for me social ethics are the way to go."
Now I understand that by ethics are defined as moral behaviors. But the distinction is blurry to me. So I would like to hear your opinion on a) the differences between the two if there are any in your view and b) your preferred method to answer this question. How do you answer someone who comes at you with the "morality" argument?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on -
Agreed. The statement given by Jared as it is can only be discussed with a giant "For the sake of argument" at the beginning. It is rather like saying "The Invisible Pink Unicorn gives us our morals" and makes just as little sense without first establishing that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.
However, there is the Moral Argument for God which tries to establish the existence of god through morality. It fails. But if it succeeded it would itself be an argument that god does exist. So Jared's assertion could be formulated into or be a part of an argument for god's existence– but as it is now, you're right, we would first need to hear a reason why we would think that a god exists before "He gives us our morals" makes a bit of sense.
-
Permalink Reply by Jerod on -
actually it more or less was just for the sake of the argument. I'd rather you tear my argument apart than the one this thread started with, which seemed like a straw man from my point of they only because I know better than to assume I am a better person than someone just because they are atheist. Now i'd like to take your first and third sets of counter evidence and provide more detail my own hypothesis. God gives us the aforementioned proto-morality as evidence of Himself. The fact that it predates religion supports this. Also, there is a obviously developmental process in which we learn how to behave or how to better demonstrate the kindness of our heart, but the idea of kindness has long been there and is unchanging. We know if what we do is with love or not on the inside (that is what determines right or wrong), but we learn if that kindness or unk indness is well demonstrated on the outside.
-
Permalink Reply by Forrest Schaeffer on -
I see no difference in the argument. I can still claim that anything gave me the morality as evidence of itself. I can't see the link, morality => god, and therefore god gave us morality. The fact that morality predates religion doesn't really support the argument either as it would also predate religion in the case that god did NOT provide morals.
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on
-
Because that's not the argument that is made connecting morality and god. The Moral Argument for God goes:
P1- Objective morality can't exist without an objective law-giver
P2- Objective morality does exist.
C- God exists.
The argument moves from some apparent feature of morality (objectivity, normativity, etc.) and concludes that it is only with god that we can make sense of that (those) features, or that those features make more sense on the hypothesis that god exists than on naturalism (a probabilistic argument).
So the structure of the argument is sound. And if the premises are accepted, the conclusion follows from them. But of course the premises are in question, and there's good reason not to accept them. So the argument doesn't convince.
-
Permalink Reply by Forrest Schaeffer on
-
Right - assuming P1 and P2 the conclusion does follow, assuming of course that an objective law-giver is in fact a god.
Of course, I have issue with both P1 and P2, but I think that's pretty obvious. Thanks for the outline.
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on
-
God gives us the aforementioned proto-morality as evidence of Himself.
Begging the question. Ad hoc. You assert that God gives us our morality. When it's pointed out to you that the facts stand against the assertion, you back up and say that it's the proto morality that God gives us, not actual morality, and that this is evidence of himself. Nonsense. How does anyone adjudicate such a thing? Would you believe it if a Muslim said "Allah gives us proto-morality as evidence of himself"? Why not? Why the double standard? Why expect anyone to swallow anything that you yourself wouldn't swallow if the adherent of another religion said it to you about their god?
The fact that it predates religion supports this.
If it does, it only supports it in the same way it supports the statement "The Invisible Pink Unicorn gives proto-morality as evidence of herself". The evidence suggests that morality is given to us by cold directionless evolution. You're just running afoul of Occam's Razor when you say "No, no, no, even though evolution is the simplest explanation that explains the evidence and observations... GODDIDIT!"
Also, there is a obviously developmental process in which we learn how to behave or how to better demonstrate the kindness of our heart, but the idea of kindness has long been there and is unchanging.
Wut? Makes no sense.
We know if what we do is with love or not on the inside (that is what determines right or wrong), but we learn if that kindness or unk indness is well demonstrated on the outside.
Lovely sentiment. If only it weren't refuted by the facts. We feel emotions of guilt, disgust, anger, sympathy, etc., and those emotions mediate our impulses and regulate our behavior, but "We know if what we do is with love or not on the inside" is lame greeting card Christianese rather than reality.
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on -
Jerod, RE: "God gives us the aforementioned proto-morality as evidence of Himself."
Wouldn't it have been simpler to have just given us an honest, accurate guidebook, instead of the Bible?
pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
www.in-His-own-image.com
-
Permalink Reply by Mabel on -
We know if what we do is with love or not on the inside (that is what determines right or wrong), but we learn if that kindness or unk indness is well demonstrated on the outside.
@ Jerod - There have been throughout the ages, and are now, plenty of people in the world who do not believe in your God that have this love and kindness you speak of just as strong as a Christian. Are you saying this is not possible?
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on
-
Interestingly, Jerod, A.S. (Alexander Scott) Neill was headmaster of a school in Leicester, England for over fifty years. The boarding school, called Summerhill, was based on freedom for children - they were taught no religion, no morals, no ethics, yet in his book, Summerhill, a Radical Approach to Child Rearing, Neill related numerous incidents where the students developed an ethical/moral sense far beyond what one would expect of adults in the outside world.
A boy, just to cite one example, had a nasty habit of stealing the bikes of others. He was charged with the crime and hauled before a meeting of all in the school, where an adult vote counted exactly the same as a child's. The boy was found guilty and the sentence imposed was that each of the members chipped in and bought the boy a used bike of his own, ending his need to steal.
I got my sense of smell from evolution, and I suspect my ethical/moral sense too, in a way, evolved through the ages of the existence of my original tribe, whoever they may have been.
pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
www.in-His-own-image.com
-
Permalink Reply by Mabel on
-
In other words, God gives you a sense of right and wrong like He gives you a sense of smell.
@ Jerod - And he (or shall I say your concept of this God of yours) gives orders for horses to be tortured. Wow, that's a sense of right and wrong I can do without.
-
Permalink Reply by Jacob LeMaster on -
Interestingly enough the theist usually does argue that they would be immoral if god were to not exist. Of course I do not see you making this claim but how about we investigate the reverse. Of course this argument does not follow in any sense based upon the bias of the other party but here goes..
People are born with a mental defect (based upon a large consensus of the faithful "god" creates all individuals/life perfect in the womb)
Alexithymia- difficulty identifying feelings and distinguishing between feelings and the bodily sensations of emotional arousal
- difficulty describing feelings to other people
- constricted imaginal processes, as evidenced by a scarcity of fantasies
- a stimulus-bound, externally oriented cognitive style.
An person with alexathemia.. IE an autistic person a person with split brain are not particularly the best at being able to understand what another person is feeling and this cases a problem.
They do understand when someone is yelling at them angrily so they can not learn easily from punishment.
They can have issues differentiating a scream of joy and a scream of pain. (I think you see where I am going with this)
So this discounts: "God gives you a sense of right and wrong like He gives you a sense of smell."
Some people are also born without a sense of smell: Congenital Anosmia
Some people are also born sociopaths
Taking into consideration that not all people get these "Gifts from god" We can assert the question.. Is there even a god at all in this system? If morality is not given to all persons who are perfectly formed in the womb are they perfectly formed in the womb?
So much like the William lane Craig argument..
P1: god writes morals on the soul of every man.
P2: sociopathy and alexathemia exist.. There for god does not write morals on the souls of all men.
P3: god does not exist..
so we can consider that nature is indifferent.. or god is cruel.
(if this didn't make much sense.. sorry I am at the end of a 13 hour shift feel free to ask me for clarification of any kind)
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on
-
Jacob, tired as you were, you made excellent sense.
pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
www.in-His-own-image.com
What's new today
Forum
Why do atheists ask for so much proof to believe in God?
Started by Mercedes in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by archaeopteryx 18 minutes ago. 300 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
How Jesus' Views on Marriage Proves Yahweh's Laws are NOT Absolute OR Jesus is Mistaken
Posted by Cathy Cooper on May 17, 2013 at 10:00am 2 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
