Dianka Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY www.carm.org Can Atheists be ethical? The answer to this question is a definite, "Yes." Atheists are people who, whether they like it or not, have the law of God written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15). They are subject to the same laws of our country (and other countries). They have a sense of right and wrong. They must work with people and being unethical in society would not serve them very well. It is practical and logical for an atheist to be ethical and work within the norms of social behavior. Atheists, generally, are honest, hardworking people. Nevertheless, some Christians raise the question, "What is to prevent an atheist from murdering and stealing? After all, they have no fear of God and no absolute moral code." The answer is simple: Atheists are capable of governing their own moral behavior and getting along in society the same as anyone else. At the risk of labeling the atheist as self-centered, it does not serve the best interests of an atheist to murder and steal. It would not take long before he was imprisoned and/or killed for his actions. Basically, society will only put up with so much if it is to function smoothly. So, if an atheist wants to get along and have a nice life, murdering and stealing won't accomplish it. It makes sense for him to be honest, work hard, pay his bills, and get along with others. Basically, he has to adopt a set of ethics common to society in order to do that. Belief in God is not a requirement for ethical behavior or an enjoyable life. On the other hand Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But, they do have a legal system with a codified set of moral laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However, since the legal system changes (slavery was legal 200 years ago but is not now), the morals in a society can still change. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." This can be a problem as the norms of society shift and the ethics shift with them. In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. Well, is it or isn't it right? If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill. This can be likened to something I call, "experimental ethics." In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it. Unfortunately, however, social experimentation is often harmful. There are potential dangers in this kind of ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings? It serves his self-interests, so why not? But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based upon the Bible is no guarantee that he will not also join forces for the killings. But the issue is the base and ramifications of that base. Beliefs affect behavior. That is why belief systems are so important and absolutes are so necessary. A boat adrift without an anchor soon crashes into the rocks. The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian; in this the ten commandments are a summary. In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be evolutionary. Since evolution teaches that life is the product of purely natural and utilitarian properties of our world, survival of the fittest, natural selection, and equating humans to animals as a species are the ontological basis for our existence and living. With this the value of man is lowered. In contrast, it is a very high calling to treat people properly who also are made in the image of God. Basically, I do not see how the atheist could claim any moral absolutes at all. To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad. But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's word. I might as well stop thinking I am an ethical person. (scuze me while I leave the house to trip old women and laugh at people who look abnormal) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest questioner4 Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 How about the basic treating other people the same way as you would like to be treated? You don't have to be a Christian to have empathy and compassion for other people. In fact, it's because of the empathy and compassion that I have, that I cannot accept the doctrine of hell, and why I have problems with the Christian religion. In other words, I have too much empathy and compassion for other people, to accept Christianity as the 'truth'. The thing is, if God loves us more so than any of us could love another person - then why would He send anyone to suffer eternally? Think of some of the nicest people that you know. You probably could not imagine them wanting anyone to suffer, right. For that matter, even most of the not-so-nice people that you know probably would not conceive of torturing anyone eternally. God is supposed to be more compassionate, loving, and caring than the most compassionate, loving, and caring person that you know of, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Whenever I try to discuss my nonbelief with a Christian, they always ask me questions along those lines. It makes me mad. The author of that article forgot to mention that athiests do good for the sake of good (and not merely for selfish reasons)... not because they fear retribution. Christians claim they do good because God commands it or because they care about other people... but if they were honest with themselves, the main reason is the fear of Hell. At least some of the ancients recognized that the "Book of Nature" was sufficient to glean morality and justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviourmachine Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Responsability is a weird thing. When you place responsability of your actions in the hands of an invisible entity, it's very difficult to obtain righteousness. It doesn't even respond to its own adherers, so why should it respond to the crimes we accuse it from? The ethical system is not validated by its origin. It's fearful that people believe in absolute ethical values. They never consider the circumstances, they absolutize everything. Or, so they say. Although... their own doctrine is speckled with rules and exceptions, laws and grace. Also sentences like "If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong." are terrifying in their simplicity. In stead of that comma a whole battery of cultural religious memes have to be processed by a brain to be able to obtain that conclusion. Don't ask it an (atheistic) child. This deifying of their own ethical ideas is very dangerous. Humility would do better for humanity. Of course some persons can't create their own ethical system because they lack the common traits obtained by us by evolutionary processes like empathy and caring for your kin. With most people however we were even able to create a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What universal declaration have all the religious beliefs and sects until now provided? Even the universal 'notion' of 'god' is different, and it's not just a matter of skin colour. A boat with an anchor unmovable attached doesn't travel, doesn't enjoy new cultures, and yes, doesn't seem to suffer any risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 When it comes down to reality, I do not see that christians shows better ethical behavior that others. Yesterday I was watching a TV programme about US torture in Guantanamo and Iraq. And this just remenided me, that when godly people get in control, things get real bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Note that the author doesn't seem to have any studies or data to cite. He's just made up some "understanding" of others based on how he thinks that they think. Then he posts the drivel as if he's an authority. What crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Emanuel Goldstein Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Since the most common definition of atheism seems to be simply "lack of belief in God" and that this has no other "rules" attached to it, I submit that an atheist can never do anything wrong from an atheist point of view since whatever ever they do it is not inconsistent with atheism. Thus any atheist atrocity, gulang, brainwashing center or death camp is not inconsistent with atheism, since nothing is inconsistent with atheism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Since the most common definition of atheism seems to be simply "lack of belief in God" and that this has no other "rules" attached to it, I submit that an atheist can never do anything wrong from an atheist point of view since whatever ever they do it is not inconsistent with atheism. Just like the original author, you postulate the thoughts of those you have not attempted to understand. There are still standards of right and wrong in the common good of society and laws of nature, as well of the laws of society. Christians, on the other hand, attach their sense of right and wrong to whether they personally go to heaven or hell. It is a completely selfish approach, really, and nearly so noble as dong good for the sake of good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Since the most common definition of atheism seems to be simply "lack of belief in God" and that this has no other "rules" attached to it, I submit that an atheist can never do anything wrong from an atheist point of view since whatever ever they do it is not inconsistent with atheism. Thus any atheist atrocity, gulang, brainwashing center or death camp is not inconsistent with atheism, since nothing is inconsistent with atheism. Since the most common definition of goldyism seems to be simply "lack of intelligence" and that this has no other "rules" attached to it, I submit that an goldyist can never do anything wrong from an goldyist point of view since whatever ever they do it is not inconsistent with goldyism. Thus any goldyist atrocity, gulang, brainwashing center or death camp is not inconsistent with goldyism, since nothing is inconsistent with goldyism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mako Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Tell that to my ancestors whose land was stolen from them, who were enslaved (along with the Africans) to toil in fields and mines for the Ethical Christians :angry: , who were hunted down because good Ethical Christian men put a bounty on the scalps of them and their families . People who were puposely infected with diseases that we had no defense against, by leaving blankets infected with small pox, ect o the side of the trails or trading infected blankets to the unsuspecting native . These people considered us vermin and themselves to be good Ethical Christians doing the will of their god! We kept our word and abided by our treaties until the Good Ethical Christian White Men broke them so they could steal and kill some more. Don't talk to us about how ethical Christians are! We put the lie to your words! Do you want that I bring some Central and South American Indian friends or some African and African American friends to tell what the Good Ethical Christians perpetrated against their peoples? As with all your ancestors, Goldie, you speak withum forked tongue - White Man (translate that last two words as - Good Ethical Christian Man) ! - Mako Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotter Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Don't remember from an African Christian friend or read it: Before the missionaries came, they had the bible, we had the land. Now we have the bible, and they have the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Why do morals have to be "absolute?" Why can't they depend on the surrounding circumstance? It bothers me when people say things are absolute because real life isn't always that simple. When you see things in only black and white, you prosecute the person who stole because they were living on the streets and couldn't get a job and were starving to death. You prosecute the woman who killed in self-defense because she was being raped. You prosecute mentally ill people and sentence them to death, instead of treating them for their mental illnesses. You prosecute the woman who has an abortion because she was raped. You condemn the homosexual simply for having different genes, or the 500-pound person with an eating disorder for being "gluttonous." You condemn the person who just committed suicide to eternal torture, even though they were mentally ill. And you rub it in the face of their family and friends. You tell kids they can't read Harry Potter because it contains "witchcraft" even though it's fiction. You tell kids they can't listen to rock and roll because it's "satanic." You tell kids they can't be friends with the kids next door because their family isn't Christian. You treat non-Christians like crap, yet you cheat on your spouse, or embezzle from the church, or something, all the while judging others while ignoring your own hypocrisy. This is where so-called fundamentalist beliefs get you. And people think absolute morals are good and ethical. Yeah, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgaris Prime Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Hey, Goldprick, Content edited as not appropriate let the world be free of your jarring stupid. >Mellow out VP, this kind of shit is not called for in a public Forum. Take it private next time. kL< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToHellWithMe Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Amethyst, I totally second that, and especially find your attitude most suitable. The quote in the OP lies on the assumptions that absoluteness is firm and Good and relativity is unstable and Bad. Showing the shittiness of classifying things like that will provoke some thinking on the fundies' part. I hope I'm right and the possible defending fundies will not ignore your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Since the most common definition of atheism seems to be simply "lack of belief in God" and that this has no other "rules" attached to it, I submit that an atheist can never do anything wrong from an atheist point of view since whatever ever they do it is not inconsistent with atheism. Thus any atheist atrocity, gulang, brainwashing center or death camp is not inconsistent with atheism, since nothing is inconsistent with atheism. That would be a brilliant observation bar for the fact that atheism is not a life philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 It's my opinion that secular moral systems have significant advantages over "revealed" ones for three important reasons: 1. Revealed moral systems are at the whim of the deity (assuming it really exists). If your god tells you to massacre another race because they are occupying your promised land, genocide suddenly becomes the moral thing to do. 2. Revealed morals are notoriously vague. Is slavery right or wrong? Can't tell from the bible - the alleged source of christians' revealed morals. Should women have the same rights as men? Again, you can't tell from the bible. Honest, sincere christians disagree all the time about what's moral and what's not. Not a good thing in a morals system. 3. Revealed moral systems are notoriously silly. "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk" (10th of the replacement Ten Commandments in Exodus 34) - now that's just silly. And to think biblegod put that in the 10th slot in place of an anti-slavery commandment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi-in-Training Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 You don't have to be a Christian to have empathy and compassion for other people. Exactly! Also being a Christian doesn't automatically make you immune from doing something that would be considered immoral. Every single human being has a sense of right and wrong, regardless of their religious beliefs, that we learn by example and experience along the way. Just because I don't fear a "God" doesn't mean I don't feel responsible for my actions and how they affect others on a human level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Since the most common definition of atheism seems to be simply "lack of belief in God" and that this has no other "rules" attached to it, I submit that an atheist can never do anything wrong from an atheist point of view since whatever ever they do it is not inconsistent with atheism. Thus any atheist atrocity, gulang, brainwashing center or death camp is not inconsistent with atheism, since nothing is inconsistent with atheism. Oh wow, are you STILL hanging around here? Get a job, get a girlfriend, have some sex, read a book. GO DO SOMETHING ELSE. This is just pathetic man, hanging around a website you claim to hate, talking to people you have no intention of conversing with. Stop wasting your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reach Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 GO DO SOMETHING ELSE. This is just pathetic man, hanging around a website you claim to hate, talking to people you have no intention of conversing with. Stop wasting your life. He likes all the attention. Remember, Cerise? I'm not sure he is able to DO anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Since the most common definition of atheism seems to be simply "lack of belief in God" and that this has no other "rules" attached to it, I submit that an atheist can never do anything wrong from an atheist point of view since whatever ever they do it is not inconsistent with atheism. Thus any atheist atrocity, gulang, brainwashing center or death camp is not inconsistent with atheism, since nothing is inconsistent with atheism. I can certainly attest to this. Since I left christianity and became an avowed atheist, it's been a steady downward spiral. One orgy after another. Lots and lots of wild women over at my house every night performing every imaginable perversion. Cocaine. Heroin. Crank. Booze. I've experimented with animal sex. I rob convenience stores at night to pay for it all. I intentionally trip old ladies at the grocery store just for a laugh. I'm thinking about opening up a good death camp or brainwashing center. Not sure how to get started on that, though. Are there any good books on how to start a gulang? What the hell is a gulang anyway? Sheesh. Whadda putz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 I would think that Athiests, Humanists, Agnostics and the like who do not subscribe to a religion would have more morals and values then the religious person. They do not have a religion to tell them what is right and wrong. They decide from their own moral inventory even if it goes against popular religious opinoin. When Christians ran things people were burned at the stake, murdered, and tortured. So, how are Christians more moral? I can certainly attest to this. Since I left christianity and became an avowed atheist, it's been a steady downward spiral. One orgy after another. Lots and lots of wild women over at my house every night performing every imaginable perversion. Cocaine. Heroin. Crank. Booze. I've experimented with animal sex. I rob convenience stores at night to pay for it all. I intentionally trip old ladies at the grocery store just for a laugh. I'm thinking about opening up a good death camp or brainwashing center. Not sure how to get started on that, though. Are there any good books on how to start a gulang? What the hell is a gulang anyway? Sheesh. Whadda putz. Mythra, That is SO funny! Taph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caretaker Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 I CAN'T believe all you people responded to Goldbrick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Hey, Goldprick, Content edited as not appropriate let the world be free of your jarring stupid. >Mellow out VP, this kind of shit is not called for in a public Forum. Take it private next time. kL< Okay, I admit I have been gone for awhile and didn't read what was posted here, but when did people's posts start getting edited? I had to make sure I was in the Lion's den before I posted this. Maybe this post was a little extreme? I may never know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. Clarification: Atheists do not have a set of absolute moral laws from an Priest, Preacher, Theologian, or cleric's particular interpretation of something they think has absolute truth somewhere in there - if they can only first agree together to be able to tell us atheists what that absolute truth is that we need to be following! However, since the legal system changes (slavery was legal 200 years ago but is not now), the morals in a society can still change. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." This can be a problem as the norms of society shift and the ethics shift with them. In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. Ahh, the beauty of the Priesthood interpreting God! Let's stroll back the Great Inquisition shall we?! At least in a secular society that's evolving, they don't have to overcome dogma from a fucking priest who thinks what he in particular is reading at that moment is the absolute moral truth! Then to change their minds about God's will for morality at the next church council of theologians and scholars. But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based upon the Bible is no guarantee that he will not also join forces for the killings. Well that's a humble, however slightly minimal admission! I think examining the morals and hypocrisies of the spiritual leaders of Christianity throughout church history ought to attest to that in spades!!! Bottom line: Viewing the bible's teachings as "absolutes" doesn't do anything more to help with human behavior that any other system of ethical behavior, secular or otherwise. Therefore, this is not a selling point for it being useful. Sorry, I'm not buying that product based on this argument. It's way too polluted with hypocrisy and bloodshed in the name of preserving its "absolute morality". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 I totally second that, and especially find your attitude most suitable. The quote in the OP lies on the assumptions that absoluteness is firm and Good and relativity is unstable and Bad. Showing the shittiness of classifying things like that will provoke some thinking on the fundies' part. I hope I'm right and the possible defending fundies will not ignore your post. They should just sign up here and debate if that's what they want to do, rather than posting it elsewhere. The ones who aren't banned yet, anyway. I predict they'll just make a bunch of excuses for their judgmental behavior using bible verses that show they should judge in B&W, rather than looking at the one that says, Judge not, lest ye be judged, according to the same way. Because no fundy ever wants to admit that he/she might actually be wrong about something, so they'll avoid admitting it however they possibly can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts