Who has more morals Ex-Theist or Life Atheist?

[BwhoUR]

If a life long religious person becomes an Atheist, is he more likely to commit immoral acts than the life long Atheist? For the sake of discussion the religious person is any religion you want he/she to be, anything in your mind that is immoral counts as immoral, both persons are adults of the same age, neither have ever been convicted of a felony.

If you want to skip the hypothetical my interest is in whether or not a religious person who becomes an Atheist goes through a "withdrawal" period when it comes to morality.

[Metatron]

If a life long religious person becomes an Atheist, is he more likely to commit immoral acts than the life long Atheist? For the sake of discussion the religious person is any religion you want he/she to be, anything in your mind that is immoral counts as immoral, both persons are adults of the same age, neither have ever been convicted of a felony.

If you want to skip the hypothetical my interest is in whether or not a religious person who becomes an Atheist goes through a "withdrawal" period when it comes to morality.

I have run across Christians on this forum that have claimed that with out a moral law giver (God) there is no basis for morality and that without God created objective morality, man would inevitably lapse into nihilism. This argument is made despite the existence of millions of non-theists who somehow manage to avoid raping and pillaging on a regular basis.

A Christian who believed this way who subsequently lost their faith could potentially be a rather dangerous person since they might believe that they were no longer under moral restraint.

[CalvinsBulldog]

If a life long religious person becomes an Atheist, is he more likely to commit immoral acts than the life long Atheist? For the sake of discussion the religious person is any religion you want he/she to be, anything in your mind that is immoral counts as immoral, both persons are adults of the same age, neither have ever been convicted of a felony.

If you want to skip the hypothetical my interest is in whether or not a religious person who becomes an Atheist goes through a "withdrawal" period when it comes to morality.

I have run across Christians on this forum that have claimed that with out a moral law giver (God) there is no basis for morality and that without God created objective morality, man would inevitably lapse into nihilism. This argument is made despite the existence of millions of non-theists who somehow manage to avoid raping and pillaging on a regular basis.

A Christian who believed this way who subsequently lost their faith could potentially be a rather dangerous person since they might believe that they were no longer under moral restraint.

I, like many of my Christian brethren, believe that atheists have no logical and rational moral foundation for ethical behaviour. However, to suggest that this argument states that all atheists are immoral is untrue. (The inverse is equally untrue. All theists are not ipso facto highly moral and ethical people, merely because they are theists.) If that were the argument, then of course it would be easily proven to be false. One needs only to point to a highly ethical, passionately humanitarian atheist, or a highly unethical and passionately self-serving theist to show that the argument fails.

But, that is not the argument. Saying that atheists have no moral foundation does not mean atheists cannot be moral agents, or live ethical lives. What the argument does suggest is that atheists cannot find a rational or logical reason for morality from logical deductions within atheism. They are forced to borrow moral principles from theists. It is my view (and experience after many debates with atheists) that an atheist making only logical and rational deductions from atheism alone, invariably arrives at absurdity and nihilism.

This has been acknowledged by some of the bright lights of atheism: Nietzsche, Satre and Russell. Their honesty, however, did not stop them from being atheists.

[BwhoUR]

It is my view (and experience after many debates with atheists) that an atheist making only logical and rational deductions from atheism alone, invariably arrives at absurdity and nihilism.

How so? Please give me an example.

Unless you mean if atheism alone is considered, in the sense that atheism has no dogma, no set rules.

If what you are saying is that you MUST borrow from religion to have good morals, then you don't believe that by being treated kindly by a parent and having them direct you in a positive way, making sure you take responsibility for your actions is enough to form good morals?

[Abraxas]

What the argument does suggest is that atheists cannot find a rational or logical reason for morality from logical deductions within atheism.

Please clarify what you mean by "from within atheism". Do you mean that strictly within the framework of atheism, that is, within the disbelief in God or gods they cannot find moral instruction or do you mean that outside the framework of theism they cannot find rational and logical moral deductions? There is a crucial difference between those two statements, one can be supported, the other cannot.

They are forced to borrow moral principles from theists.

Certainly untrue. One can value human life, human rights, etc. while not believing in God or borrowing from a theistic model. Indeed, in my experience atheists tend to value them more as this is the only life any of us get. If someone else is going to spend eternity in paradise, and I am as well through the vicarious redemption through the suffering of an innocent man sent on a suicide mission, what possible reason do I have to care about the slights commit against them? They are valueless in the face of the infinite good in store for both of us.

It is my view (and experience after many debates with atheists) that an atheist making only logical and rational deductions from atheism alone, invariably arrives at absurdity and nihilism.

Firstly, please define "absurdity". Secondly, just because you don't like nihilism is it inherently an incorrect position?

This has been acknowledged by some of the bright lights of atheism: Nietzsche, Satre and Russell. Their honesty, however, did not stop them from being atheists.

No, honesty generally encourages being atheists. And yet, many atheists have put together ethical models not dependent upon God. Many more models have been put together by theists that do not require God to be the source of morality as a resolution to the Euthyphro Dilemma. You have much work to do if you wish to claim morality is intrinsically linked to belief in a godlike being.

[CalvinsBulldog]

Please clarify what you mean by "from within atheism". Do you mean that strictly within the framework of atheism, that is, within the disbelief in God or gods they cannot find moral instruction or do you mean that outside the framework of theism they cannot find rational and logical moral deductions? There is a crucial difference between those two statements, one can be supported, the other cannot.

Strictly within an atheist framework, there are no objective reasons for morality, and no basis for determining one thing to be good and another bad.

Certainly untrue. One can value human life, human rights, etc. while not believing in God or borrowing from a theistic model.

You did not read my post very carefully, because you have here argued for a premise that I specifically noted I was not stating. As I wrote previously, atheists are not, by virtue of their atheism, precluded from valuing human life etc. They can, however, provide no logical reason in favour of these values, and they have no real means of determining one thing to be morally superior to another.

Indeed, in my experience atheists tend to value them more as this is the only life any of us get. If someone else is going to spend eternity in paradise, and I am as well through the vicarious redemption through the suffering of an innocent man sent on a suicide mission, what possible reason do I have to care about the slights commit against them?

This is a specious argument indeed. As I wrote, perhaps in another thread, one man's anecdote is as good as any other man's, and really proves nothing at all. I will not therefore attempt to argue from a fallacious appeal to superior morality or better motives, given that neither can be quantitatively measured.

I would argue, however, that besides your misrepresentation of Christian theology (if you cannot bring yourself to represent Christianity fairly, I find that significant), Christians do have a reason to care about other people. Christians consider themselves recipients of divine welfare which has been purchased by the horrific death of an innocent man. That alone inculcates a sense of obligation; but it also inculcates a deep sense of justice and injustice. If you love someone who was judicially murdered, and if you reflect upon that crime daily, then one's ethical sense tends to be sharpened.

Firstly, please define "absurdity".

I use the term to mean logical and rational disjuncts. To maintain a proposition without adequate warrant; or to arrive at a conclusion that is not supported by deductive reasoning.

Secondly, just because you don't like nihilism is it inherently an incorrect position?

This is a good point, and you are quite correct. That nihilism is not my particular cup of tea has no bearing on its truthfulness. I would briefly respond, however, that Nietzschean nihilism, which posits that life has no intrinsic meaning, suggests that any effort to find meaning is absurd; and indeed, that morality itself is meaningless. On the other hand, I think we can safely set aside moral nihilism as very few people adopt that position.

No, honesty generally encourages being atheists.

You have your work cut out for you in trying to rationally justify that claim!

And yet, many atheists have put together ethical models not dependent upon God. Many more models have been put together by theists that do not require God to be the source of morality as a resolution to the Euthyphro Dilemma. You have much work to do if you wish to claim morality is intrinsically linked to belief in a godlike being.

Could you provide one of these ethical models for discussion?

[CalvinsBulldog]

If what you are saying is that you MUST borrow from religion to have good morals, then you don't believe that by being treated kindly by a parent and having them direct you in a positive way, making sure you take responsibility for your actions is enough to form good morals?

This statement is proof that some people read only that which they wish to see. I think I was very clear in stating that this is precisely what I was not saying. When I speak of atheists needing to borrow from theism, I speak of a rationale for moral behaviour. I do not think a rational case can be made for morality that is purely atheistic. And atheist participants who persistently affirm that such a thing is possible have yet to submit their models or reasoning.

[Abraxas]

Please clarify what you mean by "from within atheism". Do you mean that strictly within the framework of atheism, that is, within the disbelief in God or gods they cannot find moral instruction or do you mean that outside the framework of theism they cannot find rational and logical moral deductions? There is a crucial difference between those two statements, one can be supported, the other cannot.

Strictly within an atheist framework, there are no objective reasons for morality, and no basis for determining one thing to be good and another bad.

Indeed, as atheism is just the negation of theism. Atheism is generally coupled with other structures such as humanism or utilitarianism or the categorical imperative to form a moral framework.

Certainly untrue. One can value human life, human rights, etc. while not believing in God or borrowing from a theistic model.

You did not read my post very carefully, because you have here argued for a premise that I specifically noted I was not stating. As I wrote previously, atheists are not, by virtue of their atheism, precluded from valuing human life etc. They can, however, provide no logical reason in favour of these values, and they have no real means of determining one thing to be morally superior to another.

Were you correct, they are still not forced to borrow them from theists.

However, as you are not correct, and we can look at objective features of the world around us and draw comparisons and conclusions as to what is most desirable, the point is moot.

Indeed, in my experience atheists tend to value them more as this is the only life any of us get. If someone else is going to spend eternity in paradise, and I am as well through the vicarious redemption through the suffering of an innocent man sent on a suicide mission, what possible reason do I have to care about the slights commit against them?

This is a specious argument indeed. As I wrote, perhaps in another thread, one man's anecdote is as good as any other man's, and really proves nothing at all. I will not therefore attempt to argue from a fallacious appeal to superior morality or better motives, given that neither can be quantitatively measured.

And yet you have spent the entire thread doing precisely that, only to recoil in horror when a taste of your own medicine is given to you. Your anecdote, your truth drawn from an external moral agent amidst a densely populated field full of other moral agents, all claiming to be the objective truth. Your objective good is as immeasurable as mine, your God is as immeasurable as the Gods of Rome, your motivations every bit as suspect and yet you proclaim your superior moral code and reason.

I would argue, however, that besides your misrepresentation of Christian theology (if you cannot bring yourself to represent Christianity fairly, I find that significant),

I take umbrage at this. My representation of Christianity has been completely fair, more so, I dare say than yours.

Jesus came to the world to absolve mankind of its sins. The only way this absolution was possible was for him to suffer and die for us. Therefore, it follows that Jesus was sent to suffer and die for humanity by God. A suicide mission certainly seems an accurate way of putting it. I define such as a mission where the agent in question is to achieve a desired endpoint for that which they owe allegiance through the sacrifice of their own life. It certainly fits from my perspective, perhaps you can explain how it does not?

Or perhaps the vicariousness you object to? By definition, Jesus is suffering for your sins and you are redeemed of them for that suffering. Is that not the very definition of vicarious redemption?

Was Jesus not innocent? Was he not a man?

Let's see, we are running out of things you can claim I was inaccurate about... ah, yes, I know, you must be objecting to spending eternity in paradise. Granted, the Bible is a little fuzzy about that point, but it would certainly be hard to suggest that is not how Christianity is largely practiced in the modern era.

Alas, I am at a loss. If you would be so kind, please show me where I have presented a false version of the Christian message rather than merely an unflattering one.

Christians do have a reason to care about other people. Christians consider themselves recipients of divine welfare which has been purchased by the horrific death of an innocent man. That alone inculcates a sense of obligation; but it also inculcates a deep sense of justice and injustice. If you love someone who was judicially murdered, and if you reflect upon that crime daily, then one's ethical sense tends to be sharpened.

A sense of obligation is a subjective thing, as is reflection on the death. Neither is demanded by Christianity. What is demanded, however, is that through Jesus' death everybody gets a get out of hell free card, and, more importantly, a get into heaven free card. Further, it provides a mechanism for which people can justify their own bad behavior as part of "the fall", or as a result of "everyone being a sinner", or "it is part of God's plan", and they always end in the same way, "if I repent and accept Jesus Christ I will join unto him in heaven for eternity."

Understand what Christianity promises, if not in a Biblical sense at the very least how it is practiced today; that no matter how grievously you wound others, no matter what level of wrong you commit, no matter what kind of suffering and despair you bring upon the world, as long as you accept Jesus, everything will turn out well for you. You can tell me that isn't printing licenses to kill but if I bought it history would make a fool of us both.

Firstly, please define "absurdity".

I use the term to mean logical and rational disjuncts. To maintain a proposition without adequate warrant; or to arrive at a conclusion that is not supported by deductive reasoning.

And is the position that objective morals are inherently unknowable absurd under that definition, even if one were to accept God or Godlike beings? How does one know if God obeys objective morals or even necessarily knows them? Could there not be an ironclad code of ethics above even the almighty, a common resolution to the Euthyphro Dilemma?

Secondly, just because you don't like nihilism is it inherently an incorrect position?

This is a good point, and you are quite correct. That nihilism is not my particular cup of tea has no bearing on its truthfulness. I would briefly respond, however, that Nietzschean nihilism, which posits that life has no intrinsic meaning, suggests that any effort to find meaning is absurd; and indeed, that morality itself is meaningless. On the other hand, I think we can safely set aside moral nihilism as very few people adopt that position.

Depends on the definition, however, I will agree that at the very least such a model is not particularly useful for determining a personal code of conduct nor one by which to run a society.

No, honesty generally encourages being atheists.

You have your work cut out for you in trying to rationally justify that claim!

Simply God and Gods have largely grown out of a desire to explain that which we do not know. Pray to Gods for rain, pray for good crops, pray for healing, where did the Earth come from but God, why does lightning scorch the ground but for God, why does our tribe prosper but theirs fail but for God. Over time, science has filled in the gaps and slowly God has been worked more to the margins as an explanation than the active cause. Crops grow or don't due to soil conditions, moisture content, the weather, insects, nutrients deposited by glacial movements, etc. rather than because God said so. As Osteng demonstrated in his recent debate with McCulloch, the last stronghold of the Almighty is what we don't know.

When faced with the choice of "God" and "I don't know", I posit the honest answer will more often lead to atheism.

And yet, many atheists have put together ethical models not dependent upon God. Many more models have been put together by theists that do not require God to be the source of morality as a resolution to the Euthyphro Dilemma. You have much work to do if you wish to claim morality is intrinsically linked to belief in a godlike being.

Could you provide one of these ethical models for discussion?

Just one? Very well, let us start with the classic of classics, the Theory of Forms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

Posit that on a metaversal level there exists the essence of all that is. What makes a cat a cat; the resemblance to the essence of catness. We can draw lines in the genetic sands or with anatomy or behavior, but at the end of the day cats are objectively cats and things that are not cats are objectively not cats and so it is the immutable, indisputable abstract form of catness by which we determine what is a cat and what is not a cat. What makes good, good? Resemblance to the essence of goodness. An abstract and independent entity that is immutable but absolute.

Explain how such a theory is either logically inconsistent or demonstrably incorrect. No bonus points for demonstrating the form is merely unknowable, not wrong.

[CalvinsBulldog]

Indeed, as atheism is just the negation of theism. Atheism is generally coupled with other structures such as humanism or utilitarianism or the categorical imperative to form a moral framework.

This only introduces a regress to humanism or utilitarianism. And, as both philosophies are assertions that make positive claims, it would fall to the humanist and utilitarian to explain their moral framework rationally. If humanism or utilitarianism fails to offer a rational explanation, then, when atheism borrows these philosophies to provide a moral frame, it borrows absurdity. Alternatively, if humanism or utilitarianism resorts to theistic type arguments, then the point is validated: atheism borrows its moral rationality, ultimately, from theism.

It is now up to you to show that humanism or utilitarianism are stand-alone moral philosophies that borrow nothing from theism.

Were you correct, they are still not forced to borrow them from theists.

However, as you are not correct, and we can look at objective features of the world around us and draw comparisons and conclusions as to what is most desirable, the point is moot.

Interesting logic! Of course your conclusion does not follow from your premise. You will need to demonstrate how and why I am incorrect with more than ex cathedra type statements.

You seem to suggest that looking at the features of the world ipso facto allow us to draw moral conclusions. But that does not follow either. Nature knows nothing of moral values: a lion does not "murder" a deer, for example, and a shark does not "rape" a female shark. Rathter, a lion kills a deer and a shark forcibly copulates with a female. There are no value judgements attached to these things. Ergo, observing the world around us should not lead us to conclude that when humans behave similarly they are acting unethically or immorally.

You then suggest that we conclude as to what is "desirable". This is a nebulous and subjective phrase. Hitler, his colleagues, and a sizeable slice of the German population through it desirable to murder Jews. Stalin et al thought it desirable to murder Ukrainians. Hitler particularly justified his policies based on conclusions he drew from the animal kingdom. Does this mean that Hitler was right? I dare say you would not make that point.

If not, why was he wrong? He observed the world, drew conclusions, and acted toward an objective he thought was desirable. Who is to say, then, that his morality was not better than those of us who repudiate genocide?

I will respond to the rest of your post later.

[BwhoUR]

If what you are saying is that you MUST borrow from religion to have good morals, then you don't believe that by being treated kindly by a parent and having them direct you in a positive way, making sure you take responsibility for your actions is enough to form good morals?

This statement is proof that some people read only that which they wish to see. I think I was very clear in stating that this is precisely what I was not saying. When I speak of atheists needing to borrow from theism, I speak of a rationale for moral behaviour. I do not think a rational case can be made for morality that is purely atheistic. And atheist participants who persistently affirm that such a thing is possible have yet to submit their models or reasoning.

Please don't be so quick to judge my intentions. I first asked "How So?" and asked for an example, then I tried to deduce what you might have meant by your passage, in question form, so that you could expand your explanation a little so that I know exactly what you mean.

I don't presume to understand the way everyone writes (or thinks) and just ask that I be given some leeway to figure it out. I'd be the first one to admit that I am the Saliere among Mozarts at this site.

But back to my original question, are you saying (and correct me if I am wrong) that within Atheism itself, meaning no rules, no dogma, there cannot be found a rational case for morality. Of course you would be right, as there are no rules. In practice, however, are you saying that moral Atheists are borrowing from theism (maybe even without knowing it) because everything moral stems from religion?