I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity." Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."
A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?
Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.
What if you could get away with doing things to people who didn't have the power to do back to you? Continue to do them good? (Yes, I hope). But why?
@Wretched - The answer to your first and second questions can be answered by looking up the statistics of the percentage of xians in prison vs the percentage of atheists (unless you just consider all atheists to be 10x smarter criminals than all theists).
The answer to your third question, I believe, is that atheists live their lives for THIS life. We do good deeds because it is the right thing to do, because of our own conscience. We are not living our lives trying to placate some super-fairy. We cannot justify our bigotries by claiming that they must be valid because some sky-fairy coincidentally shares the exact same bigotries that we have. We don't get to alleviate guilt by anonymously putting a few bucks in a bucket, confessing our sins to a con artist, and asking an imaginary friend for forgiveness. We are stuck living with the consequences of our own actions with no one else to shrug the guilt onto.
@Wretched Saint - The point is, xians don't look at it from a purely (or any other form of) logical point of view. That is the whole point I'm trying to make. Xians claim that everyone should have the same set of morals because all morality comes from a single, sentient god. He imposes a specific set of morals that everyone should be forced to follow. The set of morals that supposedly comes from the bible is so undecipherable have been killing each other for hundreds of years over small details. That fact alone makes the assertion that our morals come from a single god-source or even that we should follow a set of imposed morals from the xian god-source is ludicrous. If our morals from from a loving, caring, active, personal god and everyone that prays to that *active personal god* can't agree on what morals *that active personal god* wants us to follow, then the concept is a delusion.
The metaphor of tossing a stone into a pond is a straw man argument at best. Xians don't claim that god blindly tossed a set of morals into a pool of people and "hoped for the best". They claim that he came down from The Mountain with a clear moral code that should be strictly adhered to by everyone, regardless of whether they believe in such fairy tales or not, or even if they believe in different fairy tales. This is far from the "fire and forget" scenario that you propose.
Do you think God thought man capable of following the Law by his or her own ability?
It is interesting that most here view Christianity is viewed as a first and foremost set of morals and with a moral elucidating teaching as its primary goal. Luther and others would not agree with that as the definitive measure of the Gospel.
I am beginning to wonder if most of the atheists who have such a view all lived next to a East Texas fundamentalist preacher who spend most of his time on political diatribes and moral lessons and little time on grace and forgiveness. I am from Texas, so I am picking on my own....haha.
A nonexistent god cannot think. I don't believe unicorns or leprechauns think either.
Show of hands, People - How many here would buy a used car from this person?
@Wretched - Ummm, Didn't you start this thread? In case you missed it, this thread is ALL ABOUT morality. That's why it is being discussed by "most people" here. And the reason "most people" are talking about "xian morality" is because you are a xian and we are trying to explain to you how ludicrous it is to believe that morality at all (let alone any decent morality) can possibly be claimed by xians out of their delusional superstition.
Morality is, at root, honesty. But you can be honest and wrong. There's more to it than that. Other key ingredients are experience and understanding. Generally speaking, the more you know, the better decisions you CAN make (but that doesn't mean you necessarily will).
Honesty requires objectivity. Morality is subjective. How do we determine what is the right thing to do? We can't. Not with certainty. Being human means being imperfect.
Watched it. Thanks for sharing. I'll tag up some thoughts on it when i get time.
Okay, Blaine, if you don't like the word "perfect", substitute the word "subjective". Being human means being subjective. We strive for objectivity but it's not always attainable.
Okay all, please provide me the best moral philosophers of atheism (including book titles if you have them). I am not looking for lightweights or "pop" level writing but true philosophical perspectives on from where do atheists draw their source of morality (moral compass) and things of that nature. Thanks. (amazon links would be greatly appreciated if allowed here_.