Atheists can never be as ethical as Christians

[qadeshet]

I have not found Christians to be any more ethical or moral than any other group, religious or otherwise. No religion in the history of the world has spilt more human blood than Christianity. I believe in personal responsibility, doing good because it's the right thing to do. And even without religion, there are still moral absolutes. Torture is wrong, absolutely, and can never be justified.

[Jose]

TRUE STORY

 

My next-door (literally, it was a duplex) neighbor at my old house had a blue 1992 Ford Ranger. He had graphics of bibles and crucifixion scenes plastered all over it. I wasn't comfortable talking about my non-belief yet, so I got along with him okay.

 

This is an actual conversation, as close as I can remember it...

 

Me - "So, what's with all the pictures on your truck?"

 

Jeff - "This truck was given to me by God."

 

Me - "Really? You get something postmarked from heaven with the title, huh?" <laughter>

 

Jeff - <laughter> "Pretty much."

 

Me - "Really?"

 

Jeff - "Yeah. See, I bought this truck brand new at a dealership, right?"

 

Me - "Uh-huh."

 

Jeff - "Well, the day after I bought it, I lost my job and I couldn't find another one right away, so I started getting behind in the payments."

 

Me - "Mm-hmm."

 

Jeff - "Well, they started sending me late notices and stuff from the bank, saying that the next time they contacted me, it would be after the repossession."

 

Me - "Mm-hmm."

 

Jeff - "Turns out that the next time they contacted me, they had sent me the title of the truck by mistake."

 

Me - "What?"

 

Jeff - "Yeah! They called me and wanted the title back, saying that it was just a clerical error and the truck didn't belong to me, because it had been purchased by the repossession company, but the addresses got mixed up, so they ended up sending me the title."

 

Me - "Well, you sent the title back, didn't you?"

 

Jeff - "No! Why would I do that? It was God's will that I own this truck for free, so once I got a job, I glorified Him by painting it and letting Him know I was grateful for his gift."

 

Me - "That's stealing!"

 

Jeff - "No, no! God wanted me to have it, so I have it. I owe so much to the generosity of the Lord."

 

Me - "That's not God's generosity, that's human error. Don't you think that since the title belonged to the bank, you should've sent it back?"

 

Jeff - "No, the bank that financed my truck was a secular institution. God's laws come above man's laws."

 

Me - "Yeah, but Jesus said to render unto Cæsar that which was Cæsar's... the truck didn't belong to you."

 

Jeff - "All things happen for the good of those whose eyes are stayed on the Lord."

 

Me - "So, you lost your job, got a free truck, and probably cost someone at the bank their job, and you're saying it was God's will?"

 

Jeff - "Whoever lost their job wasn't a Christian."

 

Me - "..."

 

Jeff - "Obviously God thought I deserved the truck more."

 

Me - "..."

 

Jeff - "I'm so overcome with the Spirit right now! Do you want to pray with me?"

 

Me - "No, I've got stuff to do inside. I'll see you later."

 

Jeff - "Have a blessed day... and remember, God can gift you too if you just open your heart to Him!"

 

Me - "Yeah, alright. See you."

 

And that's Christian ethics in action...

[Amethyst]

And even without religion, there are still moral absolutes. Torture is wrong, absolutely, and can never be justified.

 

Okay, what if someone had made a massive bomb that was going to blow up the entire planet, and it was about to explode (well, maybe there was like, an hour or so left). What if you needed was a secret code word to deactivate it, and the idiot terrorist who set it off wouldn't give out the code word under any other circumstances and you had tried everything else to get him to give you the code word? Would you let the entire planet be destroyed because you won't get the code word out of him any other way?

 

Okay, the example is a bit unrealistic, but you never know. I'm one of those who don't believe in absolutes because there's always an exception to the rules, no matter how distasteful it may be.

[Antlerman]

TRUE STORY

 

My next-door (literally, it was a duplex) neighbor at my old house had a blue 1992 Ford Ranger. He had graphics of bibles and crucifixion scenes plastered all over it. I wasn't comfortable talking about my non-belief yet, so I got along with him okay.

 

This is an actual conversation, as close as I can remember it...

 

<snip> story above

Oh yeah. That's reasoning with faith at it's finest. All is god's will when you want it to be - and it's absolute truth to boot!

[Checkmate]

Great story, Jose!

 

Quite frankly, I'm glad that I am not "as ethical as a Christian." Because Christians tend to be the MOST unethical and immoral people around. How can you trust anyone who bases his/her moral decisions on a fanciful belief that "God wanted it this way"? They will literally do ANYTHING evil and immoral, and then excuse it by hiding behind the lawd's skirt. They possess no internal, PERSONAL moral compass. It's a Christian Moral Relativism. Morality and ethics only count when "God" says so.

 

It has been documented over and over again (and I have seen it with my own eyes), that Christians are the worst to do business with. They will cheat you in a heart beat and then claim that GOD "told them to", or that "God fixed things" in their favor. Christians will promise you one thing and then renege on it later, claiming that God spoke to them in prayer. I knew this Christian man who owned an auto repair shop. He did a shitty job on a fellow church member's car, and he refused to correct his mistakes or refund their money. They eventually took him to court. (He's out of business today, but now runs his own construction business! Stay away!)

 

How can Christians claim to have ANY ethical behavior superior to others?

[Ouroboros]

Atheists' morals are not absolute.

And neither is the Christians. Drinking, smoking, having sex with minors wasn't immoral to Christians either 50-150 years ago.

 

They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged.

So where and what are those absolute morals that God gave them (us)?

 

The morals in Bible are that we shouldn't eat pork, shrimp, not pray to any other God than JHWH, not work on Sabbath, not lust for our neighbors car. And I don't see Christians follow any of these morals!

 

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.

Correct. And Christians follows that moral code too. They obey to the law and adjust their opinions about morals according to the changes of law. They're just as much bound to the changes of culture is anyone, and don't follow an absolute code.

 

However, since the legal system changes (slavery was legal 200 years ago but is not now), the morals in a society can still change.

And it was the Christians that supported slavery 200 years ago.

 

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.

Which the Bible doesn't say. The closest the Bible gets to the moral about killing the unborn, is that it promotes it in wars.

 

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?

And going to war in the name of God, or killing your children from hearing God's voice telling you to, is moral?

 

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.

Certain kinds of killing is approved by the Bible. An obstinate and disobedient son is supposed to be stoned to death. Is that moral?

 

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.

Again, Christians have modified their view on morals and ethics over the past 2000 years and have not shown a stable and fixed moral code. This author is ignorant about history, and twist his/her words to fit into a lie, so he/she can assure the continuation of the lie.

 

 

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.

Christianity doesn't have any fixed rules to it either. 100% of Christians disobey the so-called fixed moral code they claim to have. They live in dissonance with their own claims. I have yet to hear stoning being brought back as a punishment for disobedient sons.

 

Thus any atheist atrocity, gulang, brainwashing center or death camp is not inconsistent with atheism, since nothing is inconsistent with atheism.

Atheism is not a system to define morals or not, but humanism is. Atheism is not a complete system of faith or structures for how to live, or code of ethics. It's just a standpoint in faith, that we have no faith in a fictious God. But it doesn't mean that the person have more to add to the labels. An Atheist is not only an atheist and let everything else go. He has more to his life and opinions than just "there's no God".

 

These kind of arguments are just word games.

 

It's like saying, I don't believe in Santa Claus, and that means that I can't give my kids presents!

 

 

That would be a brilliant observation bar for the fact that atheism is not a life philosophy.

Exactly.

[thomas]

 

It's like saying, I don't believe in Santa Claus, and that means that I can't give my kids presents!

 

 

Right. If you do not believe in Santa, it is because you refuse to listen to the truth. Your heart is hard as stone, and you refuse to let the spirit of Santa come into your life and fill you with true passion for your children. You evil man

[qadeshet]

And even without religion, there are still moral absolutes. Torture is wrong, absolutely, and can never be justified.

 

Okay, what if someone had made a massive bomb that was going to blow up the entire planet, and it was about to explode (well, maybe there was like, an hour or so left). What if you needed was a secret code word to deactivate it, and the idiot terrorist who set it off wouldn't give out the code word under any other circumstances and you had tried everything else to get him to give you the code word? Would you let the entire planet be destroyed because you won't get the code word out of him any other way?

 

Okay, the example is a bit unrealistic, but you never know. I'm one of those who don't believe in absolutes because there's always an exception to the rules, no matter how distasteful it may be.

 

We managed to defeat Japan and Germany in WW II without totrure. If we as a nation torture, for whatever reason, we are no better than our enemies. In your example, how do we know that the person in question is a terrorist? How do we we know he has vital information about the bomb? What's to keep the person from lying just to stop the pain? We are either a nation that tortures or we are not.

[Dianka]

And even without religion, there are still moral absolutes. Torture is wrong, absolutely, and can never be justified.

 

Okay, what if someone had made a massive bomb that was going to blow up the entire planet, and it was about to explode (well, maybe there was like, an hour or so left). What if you needed was a secret code word to deactivate it, and the idiot terrorist who set it off wouldn't give out the code word under any other circumstances and you had tried everything else to get him to give you the code word? Would you let the entire planet be destroyed because you won't get the code word out of him any other way?

 

Okay, the example is a bit unrealistic, but you never know. I'm one of those who don't believe in absolutes because there's always an exception to the rules, no matter how distasteful it may be.

 

We managed to defeat Japan and Germany in WW II without totrure. If we as a nation torture, for whatever reason, we are no better than our enemies. In your example, how do we know that the person in question is a terrorist? How do we we know he has vital information about the bomb? What's to keep the person from lying just to stop the pain? We are either a nation that tortures or we are not.

 

I don't know, I would call it torture when we drop an H-bomb on 2 cities who were CIVILLIANS of a country with no more fight in them (at that point in the war, the Japanese were weakened).

 

I would also call it torture for us to hold Japanese Americans in camps against their will for no reason.

 

[Skankboy]

We managed to defeat Japan and Germany in WW II without totrure. If we as a nation torture, for whatever reason, we are no better than our enemies.

 

While I agree w/the sentiment (to a degree), but I have to wonder at the amount of naivetee necessary to think we didn't use torture in the past...

 

WWI and WWII are the reasons we have a Geneva convention defining and limiting the toture of POW. Unfortunately, in a beautiful case of spin doctoring, the current administration has defined the people of Gitmo as "terrorists" and not "prisoners of war" (even though it is the WAR on terror!). As such, they are able to circumvent the Geneva convention as they see fit.

 

 

Now as for morality... I don't believe in absolutes, especially absolutes dealing with human interactions. There are not, nor has there ever been, an aspect of human interaction that has been considered "immoral" in all societies in all times. This, if nothing else, should show the fallacy of assuming absolute morality exists in any form.

 

IMOHO,

[Cerise]

And even without religion, there are still moral absolutes. Torture is wrong, absolutely, and can never be justified.

 

Okay, what if someone had made a massive bomb that was going to blow up the entire planet, and it was about to explode (well, maybe there was like, an hour or so left). What if you needed was a secret code word to deactivate it, and the idiot terrorist who set it off wouldn't give out the code word under any other circumstances and you had tried everything else to get him to give you the code word? Would you let the entire planet be destroyed because you won't get the code word out of him any other way?

 

Okay, the example is a bit unrealistic, but you never know. I'm one of those who don't believe in absolutes because there's always an exception to the rules, no matter how distasteful it may be.

 

No one lives in relative morality. They can't, it would totally break the bonds of society. It's a theoretical idea that works in college class and at the bar but not in life.

 

You are always going to have to resort to unrealistic examples of moral relativism, because it just doesn't happen in reality. Therefore, I tend to think speculation on the subject to be rather pointless.

[Dianka]

The CIA uses torture, and don't we rely on them to keep terrorists away from this country? In that example torture is use for good.

[Cerise]

The CIA uses torture, and don't we rely on them to keep terrorists away from this country? In that example torture is use for good.

 

Yes, because that tactic worked SO well in 2001, didn't it.

[Dianka]

Hey, I agree. Torture is not a highly accurate way of getting truthful knowldge.

 

My position is that torture is wrong the overwhelming majority of the time, but there are instances where torture is sanctioned as the only option to get information, and I guess I am ok with that. I feel a little bad saying that, but this is exactly why morality is relative.

 

Whether or not accurate information is extracted is irrelevent in this thread. We (America) use torture as a method of getting some information - and then America goes to church on Sunday and calls themselves Christians.

[Cerise]

Hey, I agree. Torture is not a highly accurate way of getting truthful knowldge.

 

My position is that torture is wrong the overwhelming majority of the time, but there are instances where torture is sanctioned as the only option to get information, and I guess I am ok with that. I feel a little bad saying that, but this is exactly why morality is relative.

 

Whether or not accurate information is extracted is irrelevent in this thread. We (America) use torture as a method of getting some information - and then America goes to church on Sunday and calls themselves Christians.

 

What I don't understand is the attempt to classify torture in such an instance as a good thing instead of a neccessary or imperative thing.

 

I guess I just don't see a reason to confuse justification with morality. Why can't some things remain morally wrong, even when done for a justifiable reason?

 

I think the reality of the situation is, that if you really had to torture someone in order to save the world, stop a bomb, whatever, if you had to do it, then you would do it, but you'd feel shitty and you'd know it was wrong morally, even if it was the right thing to do.

 

And, if you were human, then probably no amount of rationalizing and justifying your actions would be able to compensate for the fact that you torture another human being. And you'd have to live with that, it would be a sacrifice of yourself (Christians might say "your soul") that you'd have to make.

 

But I don't think that means it was morally good to commit an act of torture.

 

This is why I have immense respect for people who go and have gone to war in order to kill for me and my family and my country. The sacrifice isn't just in killing other people; it's in killing off parts of yourself by doing what has to be done. And then living with that.

 

Am I making any sense?

[Amethyst]

No one lives in relative morality. They can't, it would totally break the bonds of society. It's a theoretical idea that works in college class and at the bar but not in life.

 

But you can't live in absolute black and white morality either. There's got to be an in-between solution, which is what the vast majority of people pick.

 

What I don't understand is the attempt to classify torture in such an instance as a good thing instead of a neccessary or imperative thing. Wendyshrug.gif

 

I guess I just don't see a reason to confuse justification with morality. Why can't some things remain morally wrong, even when done for a justifiable reason?

 

I think the reality of the situation is, that if you really had to torture someone in order to save the world, stop a bomb, whatever, if you had to do it, then you would do it, but you'd feel shitty and you'd know it was wrong morally, even if it was the right thing to do.

 

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. I would feel like total crap, and probably would be suicidal afterwards, but if there was no other way to save the world, I would consider doing it.

 

But I don't think that means it was morally good to commit an act of torture.

 

I'm not saying you have to use the word "good" to describe it. Just that in some cases of ethics, you might have to choose the lesser of the two evils. (Sort of like when voting in national elections.) Like Spock said in Star Trek, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one in the example I brought up.

 

Now in realistic cases is it justified? I don't believe so personally. But, that doesn't mean it is never justified. To me, never is an absolute, and I try to avoid using words like that because someone, somewhere, can always come up with a situation that's an exception to the rule.

 

This is why I have immense respect for people who go and have gone to war in order to kill for me and my family and my country. The sacrifice isn't just in killing other people; it's in killing off parts of yourself by doing what has to be done. And then living with that.

 

Right. That's kind of what I'm getting at. Sometimes, you have to do things that are crappy in the short term in order to do what is ultimately the right thing in the long term, and then you have to live with whatever consequences there are.

[Dianka]

I use the word good to describe the act of saving lives, not torture.

 

Me in an earlier post:

 

The CIA uses torture, and don't we rely on them to keep terrorists away from this country? In that example torture is use for good.

 

I would say that the last sentence in the quote could be re-worded: In that example (something bad) can be used for (saving lives).

 

When I talk about ethics or moral relativity I think in terms of actions and not just beliefs. So for me to say that torture is a bad thing is not the same as saying that torture is always wrong. Saying torture is bad is not an example of a moral absolute. That only puts it in the category of "bad".

 

 

Using torture (a bad thing) to do good, is an action that steps beyond the boundaries of moral absolutes.

[SkepticOfBible]

We managed to defeat Japan and Germany in WW II without totrure. If we as a nation torture, for whatever reason, we are no better than our enemies.

 

Remember Vietnam and Iraq. You actually believe that no torture was used in WW2 or in any of the "just" american war?

[Ouroboros]

And even without religion, there are still moral absolutes. Torture is wrong, absolutely, and can never be justified.

 

Okay, what if someone had made a massive bomb that was going to blow up the entire planet, and it was about to explode (well, maybe there was like, an hour or so left). What if you needed was a secret code word to deactivate it, and the idiot terrorist who set it off wouldn't give out the code word under any other circumstances and you had tried everything else to get him to give you the code word? Would you let the entire planet be destroyed because you won't get the code word out of him any other way?

 

Okay, the example is a bit unrealistic, but you never know. I'm one of those who don't believe in absolutes because there's always an exception to the rules, no matter how distasteful it may be.

Actually I can tell you what likely would happen if you did use torture in that example. You get the code, it won't work, and the planet blows to pieces.

 

The terrorist knew he would die regardless, he knows he will die when the bomb goes off, and even worse he wants to die. The torture is only temporary, and he we reach his goal if the bomb goes off. He think that he goes to heaven if everyone dies.

 

Now the torture will most likely bring out the wrong information from him. You will kick him, punch him, burn him, cut of his fingers and toes, and he will faint, and the only code you'll get is a code that doesn't work.

 

Sorry, you're going to lose that game with or without torture. Torture is known to give wrong information.

 

I heard an interview with a retired special ops and high ranking officer that had done proper interrogation. This interview was during the Abu Graib news, and he explained what can be done and what not. And he said that unfortunately the new CIA is using the Hollywood style torture with pulling out fingernails and stuff, and 9 out of 10 answers are false and misleading. If the subject is asked to give up names, they make up names and give names to innocent people. If he's asked for facts and information, he will make up stuff. And the reason is that they can't think straight under pain, and they say anything to make the pain stop. They don't say the truth to make the pain stop, but anything they can come up with. They hope something will stick so they can get out of that chair or those chains.

 

The interrogation that works are the one that's done as a mental game, and a play of trust and no-trust. Kind of the bad cop, good cop style. The one method that works is to create a "Stockholm Syndrome" where the subject finds someone that they can talk to. And it can be planted cellmates, or officers that pretend to secretly work against the prison. It takes time, but it gives more trustworthy information.

[Amethyst]

Actually I can tell you what likely would happen if you did use torture in that example. You get the code, it won't work, and the planet blows to pieces.

 

The terrorist knew he would die regardless, he knows he will die when the bomb goes off, and even worse he wants to die. The torture is only temporary, and he we reach his goal if the bomb goes off. He think that he goes to heaven if everyone dies.

 

Now the torture will most likely bring out the wrong information from him. You will kick him, punch him, burn him, cut of his fingers and toes, and he will faint, and the only code you'll get is a code that doesn't work.

 

You are probably right, but I was just trying to think of the only situation I could that it might actually be justified. Obviously, under normal circumstances, even under the vast majority of war conditions, it wouldn't be.

 

My point was just that if you say something is never justified, there's still a .0000001% chance that it could be under a certain set of circumstances.

[Ouroboros]

You are probably right, but I was just trying to think of the only situation I could that it might actually be justified. Obviously, under normal circumstances, even under the vast majority of war conditions, it wouldn't be.

 

My point was just that if you say something is never justified, there's still a .0000001% chance that it could be under a certain set of circumstances.

Right. I understand.

 

It's just like killing. It's labeled wrong by the law, but there are exceptions. And the funny thing is that even Christian moral allow for circumstances where killing (against the 10 commandments) is allowed! Like war, or selfdefense, or in the name of God. Christians love to talk about the absolute moral they got from the Bible, while it isn't. They're full of exceptions, but still call themselves moral.

 

And when it comes to torture, we define torture different ways too. For someone it stops where physical pain starts, and for others just scaring someone is considered torture. Like in the Abu Graib, the photo where they were scaring the prisoner with a dog. I think that is considered torture in the Geneva convention. But personally I'm not sure if it should be... If you can't scare, or manipulate, or talk or anything, then you practically have exhumed all methods to interrogate. In that sense torture is a tricky subject.