goody2shoes

Hello Haran,

Much of what you are reading here is not relevant. You are looking to break from religion; not get some warmed over version of what you have already known.

The place to start is Darwin's "The Descent of Man" - Chapter IV. Many people talk about Darwin but few have read his works. Although Darwin, like other thinkers, ascribes great "virtue" to morality, he shows how it is just an evolutionary step, which allowed men to coexist with one another. Obviously it is good for the group, but - just as obviously - it is bad for the individual.

So what you need to do, Haran, is learn to pretend to be moral, but don't be a fool about it. There is only one you and you had better be looking out for number one! There are no moral bounds on that!

If you don't want to be a hypocrite, then just be open about your amoral outlook - but you had better be in a position of power. The safest route is to just lie about your ethics. (Most people are hypocrites anyhow.) I have seen people do it either way and they both work under some conditions.

Good luck.

Goody

Haran

It seems to me that some here don't like the realization that Atheism permits such views, judging by the attacks. How can you attack a fellow atheist using God?

Regardless, allow me one more hypothetical before I present a couple of points. (P.S. - This next one can come from the view of an Israeli or other people as well - think maybe Japanese Kamikazies...)

I am a Palestinian trapped in my own homeland. I am not free to travel even to my job. I am now out of work and near broke. I have been harrased by Israeli border guards simply because I "look" like a Palestinian! I am not even a Muslim! In fact, I don't believe in God or any ultimate judgement for my actions here on earth.

The Israelis have confiscated ambulances and are starving hospitals of supplies! What am I to do if I need medical care?!

My life is fruitless... I hate the Israelis and their lack of understanding and compassion, lumping everyone who "looks" Palestinian into the dehumanizing category of a terrorist!

My life is so miserable because of them that I don't want to live anymore. I do not see the situation getting any better. My life is ruined.

It makes me feel good to think of "taking out" my oppressors. Since I've decided to die anyway, I'll strap on a bomb and kill as many of them as I can!

Certainly this isn't wrong! I mean, they are making my life a miserable hell! We all die... Life is but a "whisp". I'm just sparing myself the agony of a perpetually miserable life... Besides, even if I am "wrong", it doesn't matter. It's not like I'll ever have to answer for it except by my own hand, right?

All, try to think again about these things without getting emotional and simply lashing back. It's easy to get upset when someone brings things like this up and challenges your way of thinking. I know this all too well being a Christian on an Atheist website.

Haran

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Haran

Thank you, thank you, Goody. This is an extrememly good and well-taken point. I knew this perspective was in the mix somewhere.

Haran

Jayhawker Soule

You presume far too much, my friend.

HallaK9

Aww, Goody! You blew it for everyone! Well, now that we are in the open, could we at least keep this between these virtual walls?

pug846

Hello Haran,

I’d like to throw my 2 pennies worth in.

You already have a set of values that you both currently act on and make them meld with the Bible, or you simply deny yourself all the time and constantly feel guilty.

I don’t know what kind of answer you are looking for here. None of us knows what you do in fact value, your worldview, etc. so we can’t answer for you. There is no a priori reason not to do some certain action, but each of us is constrained by a certain perspective, a certain historical place and a time period. We are all constrained by what we do in fact value, our experiences, and our up bringing. This puts structure on what a rational human being ought to do.

There is no a priori reason not to lie to yourself. But given that most of us have certain goals, it’s nearly always a bad moral strategy to lie to yourself.

Better for whom?

This is probably a bad analogy, but I have baseball on my brain and this example is clear in my mind.

You ask me, “Pug, what is your favorite baseball team.” I tell you it is the Astros. You look at me oddly and say, “The Yanks ought to be your favorite team.” I say no, they shouldn’t. I value teams that have a lot of homegrown talent and don’t try to buy their way to the top. I enjoy watching a team that scores a lot of runs, but still has a really good high strikeout pitching staff. Further, most of the Astros players, from what I can tell, don’t have big egos. Given this criterion, I think no other team in baseball consistently matches it besides the ‘Stros. The Yanks match none of these criteria – Well, they don’t match any of them nearly as well as the ‘Stros. You counter with, “Why are those your criterion?” I give you a fairly lengthy explanation for what I picked those criterions and why they matter to me. I always like rooting for the underdog. I don’t like people who have big egos. I enjoy watching a game with a lot of strikeouts and homeruns. You ask me to further elaborate on these points. After 3 or 4 hours of you asking me, “Why, why, why,” I simply give up. You smirk, “Just goes to show you that your pick of the Astros is arbitrary.” I look at you bewildered…

I think for most of us the answer is that we have no freaking clue what we would do or what we ought to do. I don’t encounter moral situations like that ever. I have no clue how I would react under such a circumstance or how growing up in such an environment would shape my values and worldview. I think that killing, except in self-defense, is nearly always wrong. I place a high value on human life. I think most people do. Therefore, unless attacked, I wouldn’t kill someone. (There would probably be exceptions to this, but that doesn’t seem relevant here.)

Please check your smug, elitist, attitude at the door. Most of us here are constantly challenged on moral issues. Christians such as yourself constantly challenge us since we don’t pretend that morals are handed to us on a golden platter. Most of us are forced to think long and hard about morality. Maybe most of us (all of us?) are wrong – I would concede that point. However, to insinuate that we just don’t think about morality and that we need someone to ‘challenge our way of thinking’ is silly. We debate morality on these boards all the time. Your simple-minded and seemingly misguided questions don’t impress most of us much. Further, at least some of us are suspicious of you because we have been down this road quite a few times. A similar situation always crops up in the Evolution forum. Some lone Christian wants to ‘challenge’ us and help us really think and has some questions about how does evolution *gasp* account for the eye or the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: pug846 ]</p>

MadMordigan

Should I take this woman's invitation and have a brief fling? After all, my wife probably won't find out and it would definitely be in my best interest. Besides, if she found out, then she's a really nice woman, she'd get over it. Even if she didn't, there's plenty-o-fish out there in the sea, right?

Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass if you bang some chick from work. Instead of asking our opinions on such action, why not ask your wife? She's the one to which you have a moral obligation (unless you have previously negotiated a non-exclusive relationship). If your wife is OK with it, I say go for it.

Jayhawker Soule

Not only "extremely good" but "well-taken" as well. Either, having shed your theistic morals, you see nothing wrong with random bursts of obsequious praise, or you are easily impressed.

jlowder

Haran,

Consider the following analogy. Bob is a fictional atheist who just deconverted from theism. Bob is also very interested in gardening. Given his newfound atheism, Bob wants to know the *atheistic* approach to effective gardening.

There's just one problem. Bob soon learns that atheism as such doesn't have anything to say about gardening. For example, maybe the most effective gardening technique involves chemical pesticides. Or maybe the most effective gardening technique requires genetic engineering of disease-resistant plants. Whatever the answer is, the truth of that answer has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.

So it is with ethics and atheism. Atheism only entails the falsity of the Divine Command Theory. (By the way, virtually no philosopher of ethics buys into the DCT.) Atheism doesn't specify which ethical theory (if any) is true. Furthermore, atheism doesn't specify which meta-ethical theory is true. For example, are ethical propositions meaningful? If so, are they objective or subjective? There are correct answers to these questions, but whatever the correct answer is has nothing to do with atheism.

Theists often believe that God is the foundation of morality. Hence, when a theist deconverts to atheism, she often assumes that atheism must also have certain ethical (or meta-ethical) implications. However, even if theism does entail certain ethical or metaethical beliefs, it doesn't follow that atheism entails a denial of those beliefs since that is not what atheism is about. (Again, atheism only entails the falsity of one particular ethical theory, the Divine Command Theory, since that theory presupposes the existence of God.)

Of course, important questions remain. Does morality have a "foundation"? If so, what is the foundation? These questions must be answered on their own grounds.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

Sojourner553

You are copping out. Why don't you "show" me how it's "irrelevant." You can't!

I guess it's irrelevant if you would choose to do good even if there was no reward for you???

If a Christian can choose to do good, can an atheist likewise choose to do good. This is irrelevant though you say.

You say atheists pick and choose. I showed you it is no different with Christians.

Any quotes I give you on humanist ethics are "irrelevant".

I gave you BIBLICAL references showing massive superstition in the Bible, and ask whether you believe in these are not.

Deafening silence is my response! No doubt irrelevant!

***********************************


In the Talmud, the Jewish rabbi Hillel the Elder, (first century C.E.),
succinctly summarized the entire Torah:

"What is hateful to you", wrote the famous rabbi, "do not
to your friend. This is the entire Torah. The rest is
commentary..."

This is the morality that everyone essentially follows: Interpreting what is good for them, without hurting (doing something hateful to) others.

I showed you verses in the Bible you "choose" not to follow. Why? It goes what you internally feel to be good. Theists do this! Atheists do this!

I can point to numerous examples of believers who have done terrible things. The example of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers (although a small minority!) abusing children is
one example.

I know people who go to church every week, while engaging in drugs, illicit affairs, etc. I read a profile once that child abusers are regular church goers...

**************************************************

Once I was talking to a white child who explained to me that while he wasn't prejudice against blacks, his uncle had good reason to be biased.

"Why?" I asked. He told me his uncle was atop a ladder and a black man walked under it, purposely tipping it over so that he fell and injured himself.

I asked the boy, "If a white man had tipped his ladder over, would he hate all white people?"

I had to repeat this several times, before the child "got it."

*******************************

You are doing the same thing Haran. One (or a handful) of non-virtuous atheists does not make ALL atheists immoral!...

Else, we would be justified in claiming all Christians as immoral, if a certain percentage of them "do bad things."

Sojourner

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>