Amoral atheists

[McCulloch]

In another thread

Nonsense is thinking that an atheist can have a moral position on anything but self-centered wants.

This is a common misunderstanding among Christians. Since they believe that their God is the source of all moral values, then how can someone who does not believe in the supernatural have moral values.
So, let's debate.
AlAyeti seems to have taken the position that atheists are by definition amoral and self-centered.
I will take the position that atheism is consistent with moral values and is not necessarily self-centered.

[Corvus]

This is the only "reason" that can be arrived at by logic for behaving responsibly as a Christian; the carrot and the stick.

And the only thing stopping a Christian from doing horror is divine law that will sentence them to an eternity of pain.

I think this is a little harsh on Christians Corvus. Personally I behave in the way I do because it is my nature to do so and not because of the fear of some sort of divine retribution or because I think I will end up in heaven because of it. It is possible to have some level of intrinsic morality AND be a Christian as well you know.

I agree. Let me emphasise that I don't think divine retribution is why Christians do good things. I think divine retribution, and therefore self-interest, is the only reason to do good things, yes, but I don't believe people do good things because of reasons. This applies to atheists as well as Christians. Intrinisic morality isn't so much a reason as it is a motivation - one that is completely reasonable to deny.

For me, all (or almost all) moral statements are unconvincing because they are based on the belief that man has some sort of value. The nature of values is that they can only ever be subjective - a mere opinion in the minds of those who hold them. Objective values are an impossibility. This view probably doesn't endear me to any group.

[AlAyeti]

Corvus, you're right. We are all beating around the bush. My point is that atheists are not to be trusted because they claim there is no God. That is why my position was dragged to another thread. Why deny the bottom line.

Atheists claim similar feelings toward God-believers. I cannot fight physically against them. Isn't that what I'm always reminded? They can and do outlaw my very voice from the public square and if I try to contend by using their less violent weapons of science, rationality, ideology and philosophy, I am quickly relegated to the category of a Flat-earther.

My concerns are well-placed. And looking at what "Holy" Warriors are doing all over the world, I can see an Atheist's concerns have merit about religionists. But, I do not see that they are justified against Christians.

The "warm and fuzzy" that a Christian feels is far more from appreciation for eternal life given without warrant, than escaping hell.

To us a child is born and we are part of an eternity of fact. Emotions can find a firm hold by empiricism if they are developed appropriately. Faith is hardly just derived from things unseen. It is evidence of things unseen by what is observed. Paul certainly knew about cause and effect, actions and reactions. But selfish emotionalism is always derived from a developing psyche that did not have a good role model. Was all that non-sequitur? Hardly. It is the basis for my assertion that atheism finds no footing in being able to find a moral position on anything by its own definition.

(BTW, Psyche means "soul" every bit as much as it means "mind.")

My conclusion from the observable facts of life and life inherent made the decision for Christ more concrete.

I not only know about God but God knows about me. I do moral acts because of the relationship. The parables of Jesus may be smart-aleck in delivery but most bright people "get it." That is why He was killed. He spoke with authority. The same insulting nature of that Christian position rings in the ears of non-Christians. Jesus insulted many people. He didn't go to the Cross by everyone accepting Him or His words.

The Bible: "The fool says in his heart there is no God."

I am quite capable of knowing how and why and what compels the non-god position. Anyone can deride that position, but my position is as valuable as anyone else's. In fact, I accept the rationality of anti-Christian sentiments if they are logical. "Why do bad things happen to good people?" The question is asked many times IN the Bible. Skepticism is not hidden in the Books of the Bible.

So simple. Look at the adversarial position. "If a person claims to be a Christian, than why do they do . . ." Non or anti-Christians seem well aware of what a Christian doesn't or shouldn't do precisely because the Bible is easy to understand. Atheism is easy to understand too.

If a person who doesn't believe in God does good things, why is it irrational to ask how they came about their "conclusion" to do good things? How or why is it the right thing to do?

I'm only mistaken, if I am wrong that evolution is the origin for the Atheist. If I am right about where an atheist thinks he/she comes from, than my position about amoral atheism is well established by evolutionary principle. There is no morality in the developing society, only means to better survival odds for a species by (hopefully) reciprocal actions. Kind of a weird Golden Rule.

But Corvus, you know that the issue is going round and round because we Christians give God the credit for much of the goodness done. A self-made man always gives credit to his creator.

[bernee51]

Altruism: unselfish interests in the welfare of others.

Bernee altruism: treat all with compassion and love for no other reason than I can. There may be soem spin-ofs i that I may get treated with love and comapssion in return.

AlAyeti altruism: same as bernee's with the added bonus of god rewarding AlAyeti with eternal bliss in heaven.

So AlAyeti has the added (selfish) motive to behave altruistically.

I claim that Atheists derive there conclusions from self interests as there is no greater eternal being to give them guidance.

Then you are wrong...IMHO, the 'spirit' of the community as a whole is greater than any individual. The community as a whole obviously exists...the entity you base your 'conclusions' on is, by definition, mythical. Who is being more 'real'?

Let's face it, many, many, Atheists come a place of from anger towards a god that would let "bad" things happen. Especially to "good" people. That is a fact.

Some empirical evidence to support this assertion would be welcomed.

I might point out though that it is logically impossible for an atheist to be angry at god. Ergo from that POV your claim makes no sense whatsover.

[Corvus]

AlAyeti, I set about trying to answer your post, but - and I don't mean to be rude - I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about. Perhaps our experiences are so dissimilar that we no longer speak the same language. I'm not even sure if you disagreed with anything I said. This is troubling because I normally consider myself a fairly clever guy.

Could you describe exactly what is the difference between the Christian "reasons" for morality and atheist "reasons" for morality? Do you disagree with what I have written here and on the previous page, and, if so, why?

Remember that I am not particularly concerned with what other people have said or what people do to Christians or current politics or anything like that. I have put forward what I think are some clear, concise thoughts on the subject, and if I am to be addressed, I would like those statements addressed.

[Dilettante]

"Deus sive Natura"

That Spinoza?

Why would you think an empiricist Christian would not adore the thinking of Spinoza?

I am a Locke fan as well.

I stop at the nonsense of men like T. Jefferson though.

A Christian may certainly appreciate Spinoza, although probably with some caveats. Because by equating God with Nature, Spinoza paved the way for later materialist ethical systems. Also, Spinoza's God is not a personal god, not a god you can pray to or have a relationship with (rather like Aristotle's god).
So Spinoza, like Aristotle, can certainly be "Christianized", but if you go back to the original you'll see that there were some very important discrepancies.

[AlAyeti]

Bernee, it's all about the "origins" of the people.

Your people come from nothing. Mine come from purpose.

Your attempt at insulting me is always puzzling. I do not doubt you are a good person who does good things. I hope you live a long time and influence a lot of others to do the same thing.

That you cannot have a basis for your moral position? Maybe you learned it from God's followers. I should have thought of that earlier. If you use society as a whole then no doubt how many in society follow God. If you use your own "community" then my position is still valid about the origin of a moral perspective.

I feel appreciation not reward for the reasons I want to do good. God gave me the life within me. I know that. I return the favor. You know little of rewards in heaven. Actually from your own words you know nothing of the subject.

Stay your course and I'll stay mine. In the mean time, people will be treated the way we want to be treated. By us.

[AlAyeti]

Dillettante,

Spinoza had a right to his views. He was just a man.

So do I.

[McCulloch]

Dillettante,

Spinoza had a right to his views. He was just a man.

So do I.

No one is aguing that point. The point is that Spinoza, whether you agree with him or not, did provide a theoretical basis for an atheist or at least a materialist ethic. This you have asserted rather strongly is impossible.

[bernee51]

Bernee, it's all about the "origins" of the people.

Your people come from nothing. Mine come from purpose.

'My' people come from 'nothing"? What exactly do you mean? And 'your's' come from 'purpose' Same question.

Your attempt at insulting me is always puzzling.

I am not attempting to insult you...I am stating facts. If thse facts happen to include you obvious misunderstanding of logic an debate that is a fact. If you take it as an insult rather than an encouragement to sel-educate, that is not my problem.

That you cannot have a basis for your moral position? Maybe you learned it from God's followers.

I have developed (and continue to develop) my 'moral position' from the influence of many people...some of whom may have been 'god' believers. If fact I believe my moral position has come about from (and continues to do so) from the interaction of my mind with what I might call broadly, 'spirit'. This'spirit', however, has no input from a the JCI god.

Have you ever heard of 'atheist sprituality'

I should have thought of that earlier. If you use society as a whole then no doubt how many in society follow God. If you use your own "community" then my position is still valid about the origin of a moral perspective.

No need for you to have bothered 'thinking about it". If you had actually read any of mu earlier posts rather than trying to think of ways to justify and defend your bigoted stance on the morals of those you don't agree with you would have realised that was exactly what I was saying.

However, just because I and others of my 'community' have drawn upon the experiences of ' god believers' for moral insight does no mean that god exists.

You know little of rewards in heaven. Actually from your own words you know nothing of the subject.

And what do you know about the topic and from where do you draw that knowledge? (Please note - this is a rhetorical question)

[AlAyeti]

Bernee,

I think I have stated my position. I disagree with the label of bigotry for it.

Atheist "sprituality?"

No, I'm sorry that is absurd to me. I feel the same way about "Humanism."

"We (Humanists) decide we are good because we decided the definition of good."

It goes back to the warm and fuzzy. I believe the good feeling that a person gets from doing good for goodness' sake, is because they are truly good people with the spark of God in them.

I don't care if you are an Atheist. I don't believe you. I'm no more bigoted about an Atheist than a Jewish person is of a skin head.

The picture you paint of yourself and what you do and believe, validates my feeling that I am an Aatheist, in regards to non-godians doing good things.

The higher monkey cannot do anything "good."

But then again, you may be right about my being bigoted because I feel that if a person basis his/her "Atheism" on Evolution, then morality cannot exist. If that is the case for the basis of a non-god stance, then I feel they cannot be moral or do moral things because nature knows nothing of caring. Though it is far more an assumption based on empiricism than bigotry, I believe.

Atheist goodness could only be based on symbiotic relationship plain and simple. "Nothing" more "nothing" less.

(That is an empirical statement. I have run my position by many colleagues and others and my position is lucid.)

"If I'm good to my neighbors, they will not do me harm and I will survive longer." (Symbiosis no matter the reason for doing the good things.)

Funny, but in a way that is a faith-based belief system.

Remember that I am believing you when you say you are a good person that "cares" about the well-being of others and that you live within a "community" that shares those actions and beliefs. Bravo.

I feel this issue is about played out. There are other topics to debate.

Go your way and I'll continue on mine. It's quite clear that unless a disease takes us early, that we will both have old bodies rotting in the ground.