An Atheists View on Morality---

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

This is going to be a long post but our network is out at my office and I had this discussion with 3 atheists I work with on morality. The following is my point and Im very interested in anyone who has a well thought out rebuttal to my point:

Here is my issue with an atheists view on the world as it pertains to morality (good/evil)

Imagine a genuine $5 bill in your right hand. Describing that bill you might say it's good currency. You may even say that it is the standard to measure all other $5 bills.

Now in your left hand imagine a counterfeit $5 bill. How would you describe that? You could say it's bad currency. In fact you might even call it a source of evil.

Here's the thing we all need to understand. Evil is not a thing, it is the merely the corruption of a thing. Just as the counterfeit is a corruption of the genuine $5 bill, so too is evil a corruption of good. Lies are a corruption of truth etc. And to prove that evil is not a thing, going back to my illustration of the $5 bill and the counterfeit--- Remove the genuine $5 bill from existence. Can the counterfeit still exist without the genuine? No. Because there's nothing to corrupt. Now switch it up. Remove the counterfeit instead. Can the genuine $5 bill exist without the counterfeit? Yes! Yes it can.

Any evil in the world cannot disprove God, because evil is a corruption of something good. It cannot stand on its own. That's why evil presupposes Good and Good presupposes God. The Atheistic view says there is no God, which means there is not objective morals, only subjective morals (a person's personal view on what right and wrong is). I hear many atheists say "If there is a God, why does a child get cancer". My question back is "Why is it that you view a child having cancer as "evil"? Why is it that nearly all of the worlds 7 billion people view it as "evil"? That suggests the presence of an objective moral compass by which human kind is governed. How does that exist without a God? You effectively in making that argument, are borrowing a standard that stems from the existence of a God, the presence of an objective moral evil in effort to disprove the existence of a God. An objective moral evil cannot exist without and objective moral good---and neither can exist without the existence of a God.

 

[argubs2]

Take it to reddit, momo.

 

[funKYcat75]

Imagine a genuine $5 bill in your right hand. Describing that bill you might say it's good currency. You may even say that it is the standard to measure all other $5 bills.

Now in your left hand imagine a counterfeit $5 bill. How would you describe that? You could say it's bad currency. In fact you might even call it a source of evil.

If it's an exact counterfeit that passes as spendable currency, then neither is good nor evil. Both are neutral. Only the intent of how a person uses it is either good or evil.

 

[MdWIldcat55]

The only objective moral position that has withstood scrutiny by religious and atheistic philosophers alike through the decades: Soccer sucks and at least in America is for pretentious weenies only.

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

If it's an exact counterfeit that passes as spendable currency, then neither is good nor evil. Both are neutral. Only the intent of how a person uses it is either good or evil.

Whether it passes as spendable currency has no effect on changing the nature that it is still a counterfeit. The discrepancy simply is very well concealed (in other words a lie) or undetected.

 

[AustinTXCat]

8 pages. +/- 1.

 

[vhcat70]

VG, BBS. Never understood why atheists feel any need to control their behavior in any way when not confronted for it.

 

[funKYcat75]

Whether it passes as spendable currency has no effect on changing the nature that it is still a counterfeit. The discrepancy simply is very well concealed (in other words a lie) or undetected.

An objective eye would see money printed on a daily basis by the gov't and wonder why those are not also counterfeits. Does spending the 'counterfeit' bill preclude someone from using the 'real' bill?

 

[-Mav-]

...I had this discussion with 3 atheists I work with on morality.

Your job is working with atheists on morality? That pay much?

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

An objective eye would see money printed on a daily basis by the gov't and wonder why those are not also counterfeits. Does spending the 'counterfeit' bill preclude someone from using the 'real' bill?

No it doesn't but I see what you are driving at. I cannot say this with totality, but for the vast majority the entire reason a counterfeit bill exists is to deceive and has intrinsic deception behind the creation of the said bill. Even if discrepancies are not observable by the natural eye, it doesn't mean a bill isn't counterfeit. I would say that government has ultimately set the guide as to what a "real" bill is and there are identifiers that assist in concluding this. Counterfeits don't possess these. I get the illustration may have its limitations and flaws, the the principle remains consistent when applied to the subject at hand----- morality. Objective moralistic truths simply cannot exist in a totally atheistic world.

Most people think killing is bad/evil. In a world without objective morality and God, what is there to compare the actions of someone like Stalin to and decide "that's wrong or evil"? What is stopping anyone who doesn't agree with any moral standing from killing the person that opposes them and taking what they want?

 

[JumperJack]

In short: I don’t see how morality can be subjective. If it doesn’t come from a higher authority, then it cannot exist because all humans are flawed.

 

[WonderBraa]

What you do is spend the fake $5 bill at like a farmers market or something and it will then become a real $5 bill

 

[ganner918_rivals60369]

What is stopping anyone who doesn't agree with any moral standing from killing the person that opposes them and taking what they want?

Society and its laws and police force. I don't care one bit if killing is "objectively evil" - I don't want to get killed and I don't want to see my wife or my family or my friends killed. Most people agree. So we band together to enforce a "no killing" rule, and if some guy thinks killing is good and starts killing people, we stop him. Objective morality need not factor in.

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

Society and its laws and police force. I don't care one bit if killing is "objectively evil" - I don't want to get killed and I don't want to see my wife or my family or my friends killed. Most people agree. So we band together to enforce a "no killing" rule, and if some guy thinks killing is good and starts killing people, we stop him. Objective morality need not factor in.

Yes it does. Because in order to assemble a police force or institute a law, it comes after a group of people essentially appeal to an objective moral authority and come to accept that authority.

 

[BigBlueSean_rivals178247]

In an atheistic society that solely embodies a principle of survival, which is what your comment infers, would lead itself to justify killing, not view it as a moral wrong. We humans not not altruistic beings. We're very selfish.

What is there in an atheistic society that tells us that looking out for one another is good? Or that we should care about anyone else's safety or well being outside of our own and our family?

 

[ganner918_rivals60369]

Yes it does. Because in order to assemble a police force or institute a law, it comes after a group of people essentially appeal to an objective moral authority and come to accept that authority.

You completely ignored what I said in order to respond with this. If you don't understand others' point of view, it's because you're deliberately blind to it.

 

[funKYcat75]

If we go back to the beginning of humanity, we can argue whether or not the first peoples thought killing a person was evil, good, or if that wasn't even a thought. Gronk has food. I want food. I kill Gronk. I have food. Eventually sympathy and empathy entered 'our' brains and people started thinking, "Hey, that's not OK."

The question is, did God spark their brains for the a-ha! moment? Did it just come natural? Did those people even think/believe/conceptualize a 'God'?

This is all moot, however, if you only believe the Judeo-Christian creation story.

 

[ganner918_rivals60369]

In an atheistic society that solely embodies a principle of survival, which is what your comment infers, would lead itself to justify killing, not view it as a moral wrong. We humans not not altruistic beings. We're very selfish.

What is there in an atheistic society that tells us that looking out for one another is good? Or that we should care about anyone else's safety or well being outside of our own and our family?

Empathy and enlightened self interest. I understand pain and so inflicting pain on others does me no pleasure - empathy. Killing my neighbor and taking his stuff may benefit me in the short term, but a social agreement to not kill and steal enforced by collective pooling of power and authority in a police force creates a more stable and prosperous society in which I'll be ultimately better off compared to a dog-eat-dog society where killing and stealing are allowed - enlightened self interest.

 

[argubs2]

Ganner politely took a **** on your argument and instead of trying to digest what he said you completely ignored it. You even said "we're very selfish" and that is comical because it's essentially what he was explaining to you. You don't want it to happen to you or your family so you don't do it to others. Objective morality does not need to exist for a society to construct these kinds of rules.

Explain why you think an atheistic society would lead itself to justify killing. Isn't it logical to think that not attempting to kill people and making it illegal / punishable, would actually increase the chance of survival because no one would be trying to kill each other? And that coexistence and collaboration with others would increase the chance of your survival?

You are awful at this.

 

[TheEgyptianMagician]

This is me playing devil's advocate.

But the reason why the counterfeit dollar is evil, is because it produces suffering. Currency is a means of trust to trade goods and services without having to barter my skill for your skill, the counterfeit cheats the system there clearly and destroys it... thereby producing suffering, thereby making it evil.

The atheist position on morality is based on that, namely suffering, and Buddhists arrive at very complex and meaningful explanation on morality without appealing to a higher authority, strictly on the logic of suffering or evil which they term ignorance of reality.

 

[ganner918_rivals60369]

Isn't it logical to think that not attempting to kill people and making it illegal / punishable, would actually increase the chance of survival because no one would be trying to kill each other? And that coexistence and collaboration with others would increase the chance of your survival

The idea that cooperation was beneficial and thus selected for in our evolution is popular in evolutionary theory. The way we bind to our families and our clans may lead to "tribal" conflict even today but a group of people working together has a lot better chance of survival than one guy on his own. Then throughout history, the development of society has been a story of our "tribe" growing in size from family to clan to city to nation to the point that people in a country of millions can (at times) look at each other as brethren.

 

[argubs2]

You came to the board to argue against a point that no one here submitted as if it was some profound revelation. If anyone you discussed this with at work submitted that cancer statement as an argument for the lack of a god, they are an idiot.

While I have certainly met and conversed with pretentious / know-it-all atheists in my time, I recently find that it is the religious in these arguments who do the "talking down" in the conversation more often than not.

 

[Ron Mehico]

What the hell are you talking about, talk about having an incredible amount of spare time. You sound like a 12 year old on mushrooms.

 

[JamesIII]

What about atheists who take a humanistic point of view of the world/life?

 

[Louis_Skunt]

I'll never understand being an atheist. Like we have any understanding after death at all. Believe in Jesus, God, Muhhamed or whoever....it insures you have morals and some structure in your life. Plus, believing is a good insurance plan when you die.

 

[DidneyWorl]

I guess Netflix originals have run out.

 

[Col. Angus]

$5.

You poors.

 

[Chuckinden]

I'll never understand being an atheist. Like we have any understanding after death at all. Believe in Jesus, God, Muhhamed or whoever....it insures you have morals and some structure in your life. Plus, believing is a good insurance plan when you die.

You don't have to believe in a "higher power" to have morals and structure in you life and how do you know if it's good insurance or not when you die? You may believe, but you don't know.

I believe UK can beat A&M Saturday, but I don't know they will.

 

[oldsports_]

Mods, ban Op for copy/paste violation Sect5 paragraph 1,a,b,c

 

[wildcatsboston1984_rivals]

I don't need any mythical being to tell me that it's bad to kill people.

I'll never understand being an atheist. Like we have any understanding after death at all. Believe in Jesus, God, Muhhamed or whoever....it insures you have morals and some structure in your life. Plus, believing is a good insurance plan when you die.

If religion is the only thing causing you to have morals and structure in your life, then you should probably go see a psychologist as you have problems.

 

[420grover]

All sins are equal in the eyes of God according to the bible. Petty theft or murder, it's all the same. But all you have to do is ask him for forgiveness and all is well. So why does any of it matter as long as you get that last "I'm sorry." in before you die?

 

[MegaBlue05]

I'll never understand being an atheist. Like we have any understanding after death at all. Believe in Jesus, God, Muhhamed or whoever....it insures you have morals and some structure in your life. Plus, believing is a good insurance plan when you die.

What a silly thing to say.

I'm an atheist who spent my first 18 years going to church by force but never fully bought in because of plot holes in the stories. I'm also a (fairly) good person who obeys the laws of our society, donates time/money to worthy causes and I try to treat others as I'd like to be treated even if some people make it really hard.

I do those things because it's the right thing to do, not to score brownie points with some magical being.

I know many "every Sunday" Christians who cheat on their wives, abuse their wives, neglect their children, abuse alcohol and drugs and generally live life in a very selfish me-me-me manner. But, according to you, they're better people because they half-assed believe in an omnipotent sky person? That's not to say there aren't bad atheists or wonderful religious people.

I just don't grasp your way of thinking.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

Can I believe in any ole god and be judged as being morally superior to an atheist? Or does it have to be the christian version of god that is taught only in your church?

 

[CatOfDaVille]

I don't need any mythical being to tell me that it's bad to kill people.

If religion is the only thing causing you to have morals and structure in your life, then you should probably go see a psychologist as you have problems.

Other than that one poster, I have not seen anyone in this thread say that religion is what causes people to not kill other people. The central argument in this thread is whether absolute morality is ingrained by a creator into his creation vs. a byproduct of evolution.

I know plenty of non-believers who are good people with good values and morals. For any believer to suggest otherwise is disingenuous and factually incorrect. The question is where that morality comes from. Is it absolute morality endowed by a creator (my belief) or is it the product of evolution and natural selection?

What a silly thing to say.

I'm an atheist who spent my first 18 years going to church by force but never fully bought in because of plot holes in the stories. I'm also a (fairly) good person who obeys the laws of our society, donates time/money to worthy causes and I try to treat others as I'd like to be treated even if some people make it really hard.

I do those things because it's the right thing to do, not to score brownie points with some magical being.

I know many "every Sunday" Christians who cheat on their wives, abuse their wives, neglect their children, abuse alcohol and drugs and generally live life in a very selfish me-me-me manner. But, according to you, they're better people because they half-assed believe in an omnipotent sky person? That's not to say there aren't bad atheists or wonderful religious people.

I just don't grasp your way of thinking.

I see a post or two like this in every religious thread on here. I will do what I always do and attempt to dispel the misconception around Christianity and the doctrine of grace.

If a person truly understands the Gospel, they know that God's grace is given freely. This means that all that is required for eternal life is faith and repentance. Good works are not required for salvation, just faith. Good works are not to "score brownie points with some magical being" but rather a manifestation of gratitude for God's freely given salvation. Good works and righteous living are not the cause of salvation but rather the effect.

The notion that a Christian can do whatever they want to do and just say "sorry" on their deathbed is a fallacy. Faith and true repentance for sins go hand in hand. I would argue that someone who just asks for forgiveness without true repentance is not a true believer.

Do Christians sin? Of course. Everyone does. Christianity is for sinners, so for Christians to act morally superior is ridiculous. What true Christians will do is try to spread what they believe is the truth to non-believers. Sometimes it's done in a way that exudes arrogance and moral superiority, but that shouldn't be the way it's done.

Let me reiterate, Martin Luther's reformation was centered around the understanding that you cannot "buy" your way into heaven. Faith alone is all that's required. It's tiresome to continually hear the refrain that Christians are trying to be righteous to impress God. That's not true Christianity.

That said, feel free to flame away about how I'm an idiot for believing in the make-believe and for preaching at people in the Paddock.

 

[Louis_Skunt]

Atheism still seems stupid. Its like driving a car and not getting it insured because youre sure.

 

[LordEggForgotHisPassword_rivals]

I read the original post in Steve Buscemi's voice.

 

[TriangleUKCat]

Did BigBlueDrone delete a post in the middle of this thing?

 

[Wall2Boogie]

I give you credit for trying to explain your reason for atheists. You can’t make someone or even attempt to convince someone of something they don’t want to believe in. I’m a Christian. I’ve seen too much in life and had to many close calls to know two things; 1 there is a god. 2. I’m not him. I truly believe everything happens for a reason as well as divine intervention. Some may call it luck I see it differently. It’s what I believe. I don’t force my beliefs on anyone, and I respect what others do or don’t believe. Much like politics nobody will ever agree on this subject

 

[Wall2Boogie]

Did BigBlueDrone delete a post in the middle of this thing?

Drone to the bone. Soccer, drones, and atheism.

 

[catsfanbgky]

What if you spend a fake currency on a prostitute or on drugs ? What then ???