So my finger is 2 inches from pressing the button..

[ollagram88]

..that will release nuclear bombs, destroying all of humanity.

What would be the atheist rationale to convince me not to push the button?

[daedalus 2.0]

There are so many topics that this touches on.

1. Euthyphro dilemma
2. Pascal's Wager (and how it fails).
3. Psychotic behavior
4. The rewards of Heaven and punishments of Hell (conceptually speaking).
etc.

I still submit that the theist is obligated to push the button, since to be Xian is to be Christ-like.

Christ's unique action was to sacrifice himself to save humanity - not the world mind you, he had no concern with the common suffering in this life. He was trying to save humanity in the afterlife (nice job if you can get it, eh?)

His example is that he risked Hell (of course, knowing he would have an exemption) to make sure everyone had a chance to get to Heaven.

If he had the capacity to kill everyone, I have no doubt that he would have. It only makes sense. By killing everyone, all worthy people would go to Heaven, the unworthy to Hell and no more people would be born to risk the fires of Hell.
Yes, the OP could say he wouldn't push it because he is afraid of Hell, but that is not a moral reason not to push it. It is self-serving and OPPOSITE to what Jesus taught.


A Xian, by definition, is one who follows Christs example. Christ risked his soul to save others. A Xian has the obligation to kill everyone, babies especially. If they can kill people after they convert, all the better, but not necessary since the Xian is not allowed to judge what God will judge.

Remember, Jesus took on all the sins of the world. He was a sinner when he died. He symbolically took all the ugliness of the world, all the evil and tried to kill it off by having himself killed. Since there can be no objective Good in the world (since Theists claim that Free Will leads to Evil), he would not have succeeded in saving the world (let alone the problem that a man can't absolve another of his sins - its absurd.)

That is, the ONLY way Jesus could have succeeded is by nuking the entire planet.

I might add that the Xian God agrees. Hence, why he Flooded the Earth and tried to repopulate with only the few "good" people on Earth - which failed (hence the need for Jesus 6000 years later) - according to the tale.

I might also add to what degree the Xian God agrees: the apocolypse. God plans on "pushing the button" and the OP has a problem:

If a Xian were about to push the button, there is nothing to convince him that he is, in fact, not the method and vehicle for the apocolypse. How do you convince a Xian - who expects the Bible to be true, and the Apocolypse to happen - that, if this person is willing to push the button in the first place (and be a total meglomaniacl ass) that he is not God's agent? That he is not the one called to bring upon the apocolypse?

Further, Moses was commanded to kill the Midianites: was there a person who had tried to convince him two seconds before the command was issued? That is, even total annhilation would not be needed. The Bible is full of stories of God wiping out large swaths of humanity.

I would like the OP to address the problem that Xinaity has "pushed the button" many times. Why were they unconvinced? Moses, Samson, Aaron, Joshua, and of course, Jesus.

This is why Xianinty is considered a narcissist, nihilistic death cult by most people (who consider it such...).


The simple difference is that the sane atheist realizes that it is monsterous behavior, whereas it, presumably takes a fully sane and model Xian to commit such atrocities.

[ollagram88]

...given our common appreciation of what suffering is, we could see that it shouldn't be inflicted...

i would agree with all that you've said. but now i have an additional dilemma - what if i said i didn't care about other people's suffering? surely, we see people causing suffering all the time, so to assume that one has that appreciation of suffering is not a given.

[daedalus 2.0]

...given our common appreciation of what suffering is, we could see that it shouldn't be inflicted...

i would agree with all that you've said. but now i have an additional dilemma - what if i said i didn't care about other people's suffering? surely, we see people causing suffering all the time, so to assume that one has that appreciation of suffering is not a given.

Do all Xian's appreciate suffering? It seems to me that your God needed the suffering of Jesus to calm his anger. It seems many Xians in the world have inflicted suffering. As a Xian have you inflicted NO suffering? Are you a vegan?

Welcome to the world, my friend, nature is red in tooth and claw. You are trying to argue a silly scenario: a crazy atheist at the button, or a sane and loving Xian at the button.

A crazy Xian would do as much damage.

Perhaps your question would be better put: "How do you convince a nut case that they shouldn't press the button?" Your religion certainly doesn't come into play - in fact, it complicates matters. As I have eloquently explained.

[ollagram88]

hi daedelus:

the reason i don't want to debate this issue is because not only do i not have christianity down to a science, but i feel as if there are far too many perspectives on christianity that would agree or disagree on the many subjects you bring up. that's why i didn't want to make assertions about what christianity would DEFINITELY SAY, but rather, asked questions and offered possible answers, because all sorts of christians probably have something different to say about the issues you are bringing up. example: some don't believe in the book of revelations literally, some don't believe it was even part of the original text, some believe in a symbolic importance in the transformation of the more violent OT God to the changed NT God. christianity can be a very gray area.

on the contrary, however, i think 99.9% of all christians that you ask will say that they wouldn't shoot some random kid walking down the street. this is a much more black and white situation, on the basis of commonly accepted religious morals moreso than nitpicking details on controversial texts.

[daedalus 2.0]

hi daedelus:

the reason i don't want to debate this issue is because not only do i not have christianity down to a science, but i feel as if there are far too many perspectives on christianity that would agree or disagree on the many subjects you bring up. that's why i didn't want to make assertions about what christianity would DEFINITELY SAY, but rather, asked questions and offered possible answers, because all sorts of christians probably have something different to say about the issues you are bringing up. example: some don't believe in the book of revelations literally, some don't believe it was even part of the original text, some believe in a symbolic importance in the transformation of the more violent OT God to the changed NT God. christianity can be a very gray area.

on the contrary, however, i think 99.9% of all christians that you ask will say that they wouldn't shoot some random kid walking down the street. this is a much more black and white situation, on the basis of commonly accepted religious morals moreso than nitpicking details on controversial texts.

And 99.9% of atheists would say the same thing.

I have to wonder your point. My suspision is that you are trying to suggest atheists have no reason to be moral, whereas because you feel warm-fuzzies about your belief you are on the path to wonderfulness.

Let me give you some reading material:
Ethics Without God by Kai Nielsen.
Also, read the Euthyphro dilemma from Plato.

Once you have done so, see how you feel about the issue.

[McCulloch]

Let me give you some reading material:
Ethics Without God by Kai Nielsen.
Also, read the Euthyphro dilemma from Plato.

• Can We Be Good Without God?: Biology, Behavior, and the Need to Believe
  by Robert Buckman. Published by Prometheus Books.
• The Science of Good and Evil : Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule by Michael Shermer
• Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (The University Center for Human Values Series) by Frans de Waal
• Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong by Marc Hauser
• The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology by Robert Wright
• The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation by Matt Ridley
• Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism by Richard Carrier

[ollagram88]

I have to wonder your point. My suspision is that you are trying to suggest atheists have no reason to be moral, whereas because you feel warm-fuzzies about your belief you are on the path to wonderfulness.

i'm agnostic, my friend. i have no path to wonderfulness and warm-fuzzy superior feelings. don't let bias clout your eyes.

-------------------

as for the books about morals.. i'm well aware of the evolutionary/genetic origins of our morals, perhaps one of the biggest reasons why i've rejected theism for the time being. our morals are easily explained without the need for God or religion.

so now the first question has been answered. the atheist answer: because we are moral people, based on our evolution.

now, do i think atheists have no reason to be moral? this question, i believe, is the interesting one. by evolution/genetically, we're inclined to believe in God, just as we are to be moral. the question now is, why do we choose to be moral?

as an agnostic, i don't want to resort to pointing to an arbitrary north if i don't have to. therefore, from this perspective, i would reject the theists' attempt to convince me. i already know the foundation of my morals without the need for supernatural explanations. the question is, why do i accept those morals, and does that decision make sense?

i'm open to answers, this isn't an attempt to clown atheism.

[QED]

now, do i think atheists have no reason to be moral? this question, i believe, is the interesting one. by evolution/genetically, we're inclined to believe in God, just as we are to be moral. the question now is, why do we choose to be moral?

Because what we think of as our "free will" is coloured to a degree by hard-wired predispositions towards or away from certain types of behaviour. Evolution can do this which is why we have the field of Evolutionary Psychology.

as an agnostic, i don't want to resort to pointing to an arbitrary north if i don't have to. therefore, from this perspective, i would reject the theists' attempt to convince me. i already know the foundation of my morals without the need for supernatural explanations. the question is, why do i accept those morals, and does that decision make sense?

Even though I understand the origins of paternal love from an evolutionary perspective I can't (nor can see any reason) to suppress the powerful instincts towards the welfare of my children that nature has equipped me with. There are just as many battles being fought against obvious negatives like the instinct for filling-up on sugary, fatty foods and chasing the ladies. To imagine that humans are a neutral blank slate at birth and acquire all these behavioural predispositions through subsequent nurture is obvious fantasy, just as it is to imagine that we can simply ignore the compelling pull of such evolutionary forces.

[daedalus 2.0]

I have to wonder your point. My suspision is that you are trying to suggest atheists have no reason to be moral, whereas because you feel warm-fuzzies about your belief you are on the path to wonderfulness.

i'm agnostic, my friend. i have no path to wonderfulness and warm-fuzzy superior feelings. don't let bias clout your eyes.

-------------------

as for the books about morals.. i'm well aware of the evolutionary/genetic origins of our morals, perhaps one of the biggest reasons why i've rejected theism for the time being. our morals are easily explained without the need for God or religion.

so now the first question has been answered. the atheist answer: because we are moral people, based on our evolution.

now, do i think atheists have no reason to be moral? this question, i believe, is the interesting one. by evolution/genetically, we're inclined to believe in God, just as we are to be moral. the question now is, why do we choose to be moral?

as an agnostic, i don't want to resort to pointing to an arbitrary north if i don't have to. therefore, from this perspective, i would reject the theists' attempt to convince me. i already know the foundation of my morals without the need for supernatural explanations. the question is, why do i accept those morals, and does that decision make sense?

i'm open to answers, this isn't an attempt to clown atheism.

Very well, my suspicions are wrong. It's just that it is often a way theists try to insert their feeling that atheists are immoral. I apologize. The nerve is raw from years of doing this.

I have addressed your OP, I believe. Most atheists would hold life sacred since there is no afterlife, whereas Theists consider this life a mere iota of a larger part of existence. The former considers life on Earth infinitely precious, the latter considers it infinitely worthless.

[ollagram88]

@daedelus:

hmm. i think while in theory you may be accurate to an extent, i don't think most practicing theists always think that way. in fact, no strong practicing christian i know of has ever even spoken of heaven or hell to me. it's always one word: jesus, jesus, jesus. my mother only brings heaven up when talking about her dad, my dad never. excluding some fundamentalists, i think the majority of theists are concerned more with living a good life now.

Most atheists would hold life sacred since there is no afterlife

but here's what interests me the most. why would you say atheists hold life as "sacred." according to scientific naturalism, life is nothing but the playing of molecules. it is here i don't understand how a completely natural view of the world creates the possibility for "morals" or "judging" or anything of the sort. i would see no regard for "human life" because "human" is but a label for the complex physical arrangement of atoms like you, i, and everyone else. therefore, i see no point to choose the "moral path" so arbitrarily.

as usual, QED provides valuable insight:

Even though I understand the origins of paternal love from an evolutionary perspective I can't (nor can see any reason) to suppress the powerful instincts towards the welfare of my children that nature has equipped me with. There are just as many battles being fought against obvious negatives like the instinct for filling-up on sugary, fatty foods and chasing the ladies. To imagine that humans are a neutral blank slate at birth and acquire all these behavioural predispositions through subsequent nurture is obvious fantasy, just as it is to imagine that we can simply ignore the compelling pull of such evolutionary forces.

it is here now i question what is the "right way" - the truth versus our experience.

QED, so you yourself say that by default, our socialized/genetic disposition towards morals is why our (illusion of) free will chooses the moral path. or in theory, why an atheist should have regard for human life: because we are so strongly inclined to be moral people and have regard for human life. this to me is a perfectly acceptable answer and i feel sufficient.

now i have some other interesting questions:

we also have the genetic and social disposition to believe we have free will, to believe in God, to believe in an afterlife, to believe love is real. are not those with the scientific natural view of the world, thus, on the brink of being "mentally ill?"

so why is it, to believe in God is crazy? to believe that there is a magical power when a man and a woman fall in love is crazy? to believe that we have free will is crazy?

especially the last one. no matter how much science might continue to find evidence that our free will doesn't exist, over and over, free will is always going to seem real to us. our society, our biological make-up tells us that. even no matter how much science pounds into our heads "free will doesn't exist," our biology won't let us deny it because it seems so real.

so who's to say people who believe in religion, love, free will, "meaningful things" are the "crazy" ones? wouldn't it be the other way around?

going back to the question of morals.. the atheist accepts morals under his view of the world, yet rejects all else. this is consistent to the extent that the atheist is rejecting the supernatural. as far as i'm concerned, though, the atheists are the "crazy" ones in society.

our genetics and society have led to a world of morals, God, free will, love, meaningful lives. to me, it seems that atheists are very arbitrary in their selection of what they choose, equally as arbitrary as the Christians who believe what roles God plays in our society.

the atheist will say - don't press that button. why? because genetics and society tells us so! yet at the same time, the atheist will reject God, free will, "meaningful" things, despite what our genetics and society are telling us. the atheist may be consistent with their views of scientific naturalism; as far as our world is concerned, however, they seem to be crazy.

to me, the distinction between who is right or wrong becomes blurred.

is a world that professes scientific naturalism practical and what society should become, is willing to accept? or is it an interesting topic of discussion for the intellectual elite, and nothing more?