Gurdur

Actually, I find this to put many of the stances into a nutshell, and in a most illuminating and thought-provoking way.

Chuikov

Very interesting discussion. Let me try and respond to some random quotations throughout this thread (apologies for not citing the original posters, but there are a lot of these!)

BTW, keep in mind in all these responses I'm playing the Devil's Advocate, just trying to offer a plausible response. I haven't made up my mind on this subject, as of yet, and would be perfectly happy to see someone offer a valid rebuttal.

It certainly does, but not in the way you think. An immoral person can get very far in this world. Look at Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Pol Pot, or virtually any other successful dictator or conqueror.

In theistic morality, all of their conquests and mass murder mean nothing. They'll suffer most terribly in the end for their crimes. In atheistic morality, most of the above 'got away with it'; meaning, they were never caught and punished, or if they were it was a punishment nowhere near as severe as their crimes should have earned them.

Josef Stalin spent a lifetime having people shot, tortured, worked to death as slave labor....and he died peacefully in bed, most likely regretting nothing about what he did. In atheistic morality, that's where the story ends, which you can understand creates a dilemma.

The Romans waged unprovoked war against their neighbors, frequently slaughtered them en masse, and sold the survivors into slavery. Were they animals?

For that matter, the United States has pursued a policy of self-interest in which it has allied with some of the worst dictatorships and human rights violators and called it 'fighting for Freedom'. Are we animals?

If so, then humanity has been an animal through his entire history.

Not really. In fact, they're the same thing. Society's fate matters only insofar as I benefit from it. The moment the rest of humanity gets in the way of something that benefits me, I see no reason in atheistic morality for me to pay the slightest attention to their needs, save for punishment from the rest of them (which boils the law down to "don't get caught".)

Tell that to the Aztecs, who spent hundreds of years ripping people's hearts out of their chests in the name of their religion. Or, if that simply fuels antipathy against religious superstition instead of making my point, tell that to the atheistic Soviet NKVD men who dedicated their careers to shooting as many 'counter-revolutionaries' as possible.

True. But in the Christian's moral world view, those 'false Christians' are currently being horribly tortured. In the atheist world view, those same guys go to the same fate as Mother Teresa.

About someone being imprisoned/shunned from society: not only does this reduce morality, once again, to the most simplistic notion of "don't get caught", it also fails to address societies which are themselves corrupt, by traditional standards. The Nazis imprisoned/shunning Jews is hardly what most people would call justice or a fair system of morality, after all, but without God their system is every bit as justified in it's moral approach as any other.

I presume most Theists would argue that if a person isn't genuinely remorseful for their action, God won't forgive him/her. Thus, you couldn't run over an old lady, say 'Oops! Sorry about that, God!', and then go on your merry way expecting to get into heaven.

On the contrary, it's an extremely fragile approach to morality. You can examine behavior and consequences to your heart's content, but what if I completely ignore your findings? What, exactly, will you do to enforce your morality so that there is 0% possibility of me escaping justice?

Theoretically, God has a system in which NO ONE escapes justice. You can't escape an all-powerful, all-knowing being, after all.

It comments on nothing about my moral character, because we've yet to define precisely what it is that is moral or immoral, and we've yet to find out HOW we can do so if God isn't there.

And the 14th, 15th, 16th, and god only knows how many other Centuries were racked, quartered, and drawn by theistic notions of Inquisitions rooting out the godless and bringing the true word of the Lord to the heathen. I think your misidentifying the cause of the suffering here.

It's neither advanced nor primitive. It's just another moral code every bit as valid or invalid as that used by the Aztecs, the Nazis, the Romans, or any other group in history. It succeeds or fails based upon the ability to enforce it, and God alone has a foolproof way to enforce morality.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Chuikov ]

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Chuikov ]</p>

Secular Elation

If you apply my argument in historical context, yes, then there is a problem. I should have clarified that, at least in this modern world--at least in American society--murder is very much generally accepted as an abominable act. Yes, a person here and there will still kill someone, but on the whole our society has agreed on this, and the law fits with it.

That is one thing that has always annoyed me: that such people are 'not true Christians.' That's the "No True Scottsman" fallacy. Those people WERE Christians. Were they wrong in what they did? Certainly, but they were still Christians--they still believed in the existence of the Christian god.

As for the atheists, sure, a murderer and Mother Teresa will end up the same way, but that does not mean one is free to committ bad deeds. The consequences in the real world are the reason for this.

Imprisonment was only an example. There are other real-world consequences to be listed that would deter a person from doing wrong. The Nazis did imprison the Jews, but it was the Nazis who were terribly corrupt, not the Jews. When you consider American society, it [society] is not corrupt, the criminals are the ones who are corrupt.

My basic point I am trying to convey is that morals could function despite the absence of a deity, because, even though divine threats of punishment would not exist, the consequences in this world would be necessary enough.

Am I trying to say that an atheist society would be morally invincible? Of course not! Am I trying to say that we must abolish religious belief to have good morals? No.

However, I feel that it is more than possible for morals to be healty in the absence of a god. Many atheists live this way, and I want them to continue their formulations of secular life. I am simply tired of theistic attempts to choke nonreligious ideas of morality, as in the theist who I quoted in my first post.

I am an atheist, and I do not steal, kill, abase others, or whatever morally contemptible action you want to thin of.

Secular Elation

I disagree. We have defined what is moral and immoral: murder is immoral, something that our society has, on the surface, agreed on.

Why should be believe that muder is wrong simply because a (likely non-existent) god says so? Why shouldn't we, as a human society, formulate our own rational reasons why murder is immoral? In fact, I think there is much nonreligious rationale for the immmorality of murder.

babelfish

Chuikov:

By "foolproof way to enforce morality" are you alluding to hell?