if an atheist does something good...

by DannyBloem 113 Replies latest watchtower scandals

LittleToe

S:
My own case, though you know fine well that I'm talking about the beliefs of any given religion
skeptic2

LittleToe - is that comment meant for me? If so, can you clarify, because I have no idea what you're talking about (and I'm not being disingenous, just real busy at work right here - maybe I missed something).
Additionally, let's get down to brass tacks here:
Can anyone provide me a list of moral teachings that only the Christian religion has brought to the world? That did not exist before Christianity?
kid-A

Nothing like the words and sentiments of self-righteous, hypocritical religionists to remind me of WHY I am an atheist! What is even more amusing and absurd are the christian/roman catholic apologists claiming that their own "institutional" brand of morality is somehow "superior" to those of the "non-christian" religionists! LOL. EVERY SINGLE religion on earth CLAIMS to have a monopoly on "absolute" morality and guess what? Its all bullocks!
The logical fallacies of the religionists regarding the "moral universe" of the atheist/agnostic are blatantly transparent and obvious to the thinking, rational mind:
1) Only very small children and/or weak, feeble-minded 'adults' would require some external, imaginary sky-deity to inform them of what is "right or wrong". The atheist depends upon simple, common sense when navigating the moral universe, and, respects the rights of HUMANITY and the INDIVIDUAL rather than licking the boots of some authoritarian religious institution claiming to be the spokesman of some mythical creature in the sky.
2) When an atheist performs an act of kindness towards another human being, he/she does not require some god to give them a "golden star" in the heavenly ledger, in the pathetic hope that this act of goodness will somehow insure the survival of their soul into the heavenly afterlife. The atheist performs goodness out of LOVE OF HUMANITY, not blind obsequience to an institution or fictional deity. The RELIGIONIST performs goodness out of a well-scripted ulterior motive: "please lordy, save my wicked sinners ass from the fires of hell! If you do, I promise to donate this old sofa to Goodwill and help the old lady across the street!". The ATHEIST neither needs nor requires this "heavenly carrot" dangling in front of them in order to perform goodness. The atheist acts out of love for fellow human, not love for some supernatural overlord.
3) Morality and the human concept of charity and good will did NOT originate in the supernatural mist. They originated during the EVOLUTION of human society, and the human mind. Obviously early hominids quickly realized that there was strength and security in numbers. Obviously for such an early social structure to survive, these hominids would have needed to "be nice" to one another, look after one another and eventually evolve the psychological constructs of "love" and "loyalty". Now, what happens over the course of human and social evolution? These genetically inspired traits are selected for and become 'hard-wired' into the human brain. No god is required for the explanation of "absolute good", and the very concept of "absolute" ANYTHING is inherently ridiculous. ALL human defined concepts of good and evil are the products of the SPECIFIC cultures and historical contexts within which they arise. In ancient Israel it was an "absolute good" to publicly execute your child by stoning if they dared 'talk back' to you. Now, this is the SAME god all christians and jews now claim to worship, yet miraculously, performing this same "absolute" good will get one life in prison or the electric chair, so , seems like a sliding scale of absolute good coming from on high now doesnt it? The evolution of morality througout human history has been documented over and over by archaelogists and anthropologists. Even the rudiments of such social "moral" structures are present in natural primate populations today.
4) The atheist does not take the arrogant position of the religionist in believing that somehow the human animal is some glorified "creation", worthy of some "eternal prize" beyond the end of physical existence. We believe in the HERE and NOW. Rather than taking the position that some hypothetical 'god' will 'set things right' in some imaginary afterlife, the atheist strives to make his/her present life something worthwhile. The atheist KNOWs that this life is not a "dress rehearsal" for some mythical existence sitting on a cloud strumming a harp for all eternity. Thus, the atheist makes THIS life (which is the only one you will ever have) count. The atheist ACCEPTS his/her ephemeral mortality, and therefore, is infinitely HUMBLE in the realization that this life WILL end, and the actions you took in THIS life, will be your only legacy.
5) The atheist moral universe is INTERNAL, not dependent on external illusions. When I do something that hurts another human, I ACCEPT full responsibility for my actions. The "religionist" has the convenient option of "blaming it on the devil" rather than taking the time to look inside their own mind, to logically examine the reasons behind their actions. The catholic just goes to "confession" in an illusory attempt to whitewash their actions or psychological guilt, again, needing some "external" agent to justify their actions. Rather than relying upon their own understanding and wisdom to guide their behaviours, the religionist adopts a "rule book" written by wandering desert nomads 2000 years ago in an attempt to appease their tribal deity.
6) Ultimately, the moral universe of the religionist uses "FEAR" as fuel. Fear of pissing off their wrathful god, fear of death, fear of displeasing self-appointed "human" masters, be they a Preist, a Reverend, a Minister, an Elder, what have you. By logical extension, even their "love" is fuelled by fear. Love your wife BECAUSE god told you to. Love your children BECAUSE god told you to. Love your neighbour BECAUSE god told you to. By contrast, the atheist lives in a state of "acceptance": acceptance of the real position of humanity in the infinity of the cosmos, acceptance of the ephemeral and limited nature of human life, which, naturally, makes us appreciate THIS life even MORE. Acceptance that ultimately, we have to answer to ourselves, as human beings and that our ONLY judge, will be history. The atheist LOVES due to the acceptance that his/her fellow human beings, have evolved alongside with them, share the same planet and our deserving of respect due to our common HUMAN origins.
LittleToe

Skeptic2:No, it was a reply to Satanus, who often goes by "S". I hope that alleviates the confusion
Can anyone provide me a list of moral teachings that only the Christian religion has brought to the world? That did not exist before Christianity?
None that I can think of, especially in view of things like the Hammurabi Law Code, though that wasn't the point of my post, nor IMHO the point of Christianity.
Kid-A:I agree. A religio-centric worldview is, IMHO, damaging. I state that even while accepting that religion has it's uses, as does the most obscure tool.
diamondblue1974

It depends on the motive for the act of good; was it out of self interest or was it a selfless act?
In my view it matters not what you believe in (whether athiestic or monotheistic) everyone has the capacity to be good or bad, wrong or right and its whatever choice you make in life (as well as the reasons for them) that determine who you or we are.
Its not your beliefs its your motivation that is important.
DB74
Show me the statistical empirical evidence that your statement is more correct than there being invisible pink unicorns at the bottom of the garden
LT, you leave my invisible unicorns alone...and why pink?
funkyderek

Evanescence:
A theist or Christian don't necessarily do good because "their God told them to do it" at first Christians must submit to the law but then the "law will set you free" because of our human sinfulness we need laws for direction and as a starting point, but as you grow in your spiritual life you will be "set free" and will do good not because it is required by the law, but because of your love towards one another.

But what do you mean by "good"? Is something good because your god says it's good, or is there another independent standard? If there's an independent standard, then why can an atheist not follow it? If the whims of a god are the only standard, then what's good about that?
As a previous poster joked before "they will do good if it is for survival" that is exactly the atheist worldview, "survival of the fittest"

Nonsense. Survival of the fittest is a maxim relating to Darwinian evolution. It is not in any way a moral imperative.
If this is the case then we cannot say what Hitler did was wrong, in the end war is just that "survival of the fittest"

What Hitler did was wrong because he violated the rights of others. It would remain wrong even if he had won, or even if a god had declared it "good".
In an atheist worldview, there cannot be any certain "right" and "wrong" "good" or "bad"
That's obviously not true. Good and bad do not depend on mythology. Something is bad if it is detrimental to the lives of sentient beings, and good if beneficial to them.(Those definitions can obviously be examined and explored in more detail.)
....What is good exactly? Where do our morals originate from? If there is no certain good and evil Then the closest we can get to is "disagreement" You can't really say "my opinion is right and yours is wrong" concerning morals, because there is no "right" and "wrong"!
Well, where does your right and wrong come from? Is it simply whatever God says? Do you think murder is wrong because God says it is wrong or because it ends the life of another human being?
If your morals come from your god, then aren't they completely arbitrary? How can you distinguish between the morals you get from your god, and those that other people get from theirs?
Think of a world with no moral law...
Any world with sentient beings capable of harming one another would of necessity have moral laws.
If someone was to push in front of you while standing in the line would you say "Hey that is not fair, I was here first" ? If the other person ignore you and say "tough luck pal"

Why not belt the living daylights out of the lunatic and show him who's master? Isn't that what the atheist worldview promote
No, not at all. In fact, that's essentially what mainstream Christianity teaches. If you don't follow the rules of its god, you will be beaten up for all eternity. What's "good" about that?
skeptic2

Do you think murder is wrong because God says it is wrong or because it ends the life of another human being?

I've been struggling to express myself in this thread due to being so utterly offended by some of the comments made by 'moral Christians'... I'm thankful that others (like Kid-A, funkyderek, etc.) are more eloquent than I am!
Midget-Sasquatch

I disagree with Evanescence's take that morality has to be given to us by god. And while I don't completely agree will her following statement -
As a previous poster joked before "they will do good if it is for survival" that is exactly the atheist worldview, "survival of the fittest"
I don't think the following counterpoint is fully convincing:
Nonsense. Survival of the fittest is a maxim relating to Darwinian evolution. It is not in any way a moral imperative.
I agree with the main point here. But juxtapose that statement with the following:
That's obviously not true. Good and bad do not depend on mythology. Something is bad if it is detrimental to the lives of sentient beings, and good if beneficial to them.(Those definitions can obviously be examined and explored in more detail.)
Here's my minor quibble. Evolutionary psychology argues that this very same principle was crucial in the evolution of our morality. So in a sense I can't dispute with Evanescence that "survival" had something to do with "good" behaviour early on (and its presently in our wiring). But that goes for ALL of us.
I agree with FunkyDerek, that in the here and now, as sentient beings, we can rise above non-sentient selective pressures, and now rationally look at our codes and adapt them to new ethical situations as they arise in our evolving society. Hopefully that may help her to see where some of us relative moralists are coming from.
skeptic2

Some consider evolutionary psychology to be on par with peudoscience. The whole subject is very over-blown, so I wouldn't take too much notice.
funkyderek

skeptic2:
Here's my minor quibble. Evolutionary psychology argues that this very same principle was crucial in the evolution of our morality. So in a sense I can't dispute with Evanescence that "survival" had something to do with "good" behaviour early on (and its presently in our wiring).

As a materialist I believe all human traits are the result of natural processes, specifically evolution. As a neo-Darwinist I believe that evolution works primarily on the principle of "survival of the fittest" (i.e: in any population, those organisms that are best equipped to survive are most likely to survive). I see no reason to believe that our sense of morality didn't come about in the same manner as every other trait(i.e.:humans or hominids with a particular "fit" set of moral instincts survived while those with other moral instincts died out).
This does not mean, however, that "survival of the fittest" is the moral instinct that survived. In fact, it's quite obvious that it isn't. Survival of the fittest is a reality but our morals generally include helping the weak, and prohibit gain at the expense of others. We don't need or want to measure fitness and decide who survives and who dies - the universe does that for us, and I think most atheists wish it wouldn't.
As a social species the morality that has evolved is one that tends to maximise the wellbeing of the group, which is undoubtedly why theft, murder and rape are (almost) universally condemned by moral codes. They harm the group and the individuals in the group, and are therefore a threat to the survival or wellbeing of the group.
Of course, as intelligent beings we are able to go beyond the moral instincts we were born with, and formulate codes of morality based on our knowledge, goals and aspirations. The more prosperous and technologically advanced a culture is, the higher its moral ideals tend to be as the ever-looming spectre of natural selection is pushed further into the background.

if an atheist does something good...

Share this