Does Justice Matter To Atheists?

[rjn]

megasamurai, that's because, to many Christians, sins are sins, and equally bad in the eyes of God. What constitutes a sin is not the gravity of its "wickedness", but simply the fact that it's a rebellious act against God. Thus, in their eyes, petty theft is just as bad as rape or murder. There's a thread in the News section that covers this mentality pretty well: an article about a Pastor who compared sexual child abuse with stealing an apple (or something along those lines). Needless to say, I think that's bullshit, and utterly immoral.

[megasamurai]

But the odd thing about Christian morality is that nothing is a moral absolute if God authorizes it. Let's take slaughtering babies and old people. It's wrong, unless God authorizes it. The ends supposedly justify the means. Genocide of the few saves the lives of the many (I'm told). Christians have an odd relationship with the utilitarianism and absolutism that makes their morality confusing. Let's give the example of the trolley problem, a classic moral dilemma. People are tied to a trolley track and a trolley is coming towards those people. There's a man fat enough to stop the trolley if he's pushed in front of the tracks. Is it right to slaughter an innocent and violate a moral principle for the greater good? Christians say it would be wrong no matter how many lives is saved unless God authorizes, then it is a wonderful loving slaughter. Christians use the trolley problem to prove that the violence in the Bible is a good thing. Sometimes the greater good is more important than moral principles. The problem is that God can cheat and teleport the people on the tracks without killing the fat man. My main argument against the trolley problem is that the circumstances that require you to consider sacrificing innocents are incredibly rare and the whole scenario is contrived and almost impossible to be a real situation.

[Llwellyn]

Was your friend's question an honest question or a rhetorical question?  If it was simply part of a reason for your friend's belief, I would respond that I didn't share the belief and was not persuaded by the reasons.  I would only answer the question if it was part of a genuine inquiry based on real doubt.  

 

The mere putting of a proposition into the interrogative form does not stimulate the mind to any struggle after belief. There must be a real and living doubt, and without this all discussion is idle.  If it is not an honest question, then the discussion is a waste of effort and not a genuine inquiry.