[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
That was exactly the direction that Ellen Johnson took, and I think it was exactly the wrong way to go. The lack of moral perfection in theists could be a fair supplementary point but it wasn’t an answer to the question she was asked about her own morality, and I think it made her sound evasive and unnecessarily hostile (a tendency that American Atheists really should work to eliminate) and made it look like the Reverend had stumped her for an answer. Even I’m getting tired of the “pedophile priests” refrain. It’s not a defense of atheism or atheistically derived morality, and it’s not a refutation of theism or theistic derived morality.
This should be one of those questions that any spokesperson for atheists should be able to answer automatically. They’re alleged “lack” of a moral system one of the most common attacks they receive. It’s a whack-a-mole question for guys like Dawkins and Harris. Johnson blew it.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you completely- the pedophile route is hackneyed. But the media has focuses on it relentlessly and everyone is familiar with the scandals. I think that people use it as a shortcut to the argument “Both atheists and theists are equally guilty of moral failings; so prove to me how Christians are morally superior.” The topic is just a handy jumping off point. It is a cop out, but I can see why someone supporting the opposing view would slip it in as a soundbite when pressed for time.
[QUOTE=Eonwe]
Why the hell does it matter where anyone’s morals come from, as long as they are generally good people?
[/QUOTE]
Not really a matter of scoring points, though a lot of these threads deteriorate into that sort of match. Emotions run high and both sides make jabs at one another to prove a point. Why is it important? Because atheists often have to prove that they can be ethical, moral, and kind citizens without religious conviction. I can give you an example from my private life- I have felt the need to express an alternative moral perspective to a friend who is a Jehovah’s Witness when the subject of shunning has come up. He feels that the Bible provides ultimate authority in matters of human relations, and I feel that some of the practices and principles espoused by that text leave something to be desired. My chief complaint about conservative Christianity (and most conservative religions) is the practice of discrimination and exclusion. I feel that these two traits are unkind, and when taken to extremes- inhuman. How else do I express disagreement without pressing the point of individual ethics?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Becuase it is a firmly believed misunderstanding among an unfortunately large number of theists (and even a deist or two based on comments posted to this board) that morality only arises from religion. This fundamental misundersatanding is one of the direct causes of the fear that many theists express about atheism: that its adoption by any large number of the population will result in a breeakdown of morality and ethics in society. It is probably the single biggest reason (IMO) why atheists are hated more in the U.S. than even Islamist militants. Uninformed theists fear that a lack of a god will result in the dissolution of society.
(Note, also, that in teh TV discussion, the issue was raised by a theist, not the atheists.)
[/QUOTE]
Thank you, tomndebb. Since you come from a theist perspective that was a very fair point to make. I would have said the same thing, albeit less eloquently. I appreciate that.
[QUOTE=tdn]
Max Torque, I’ll buy that as an excellent answer, but it wouldn’t fly in CNN’s format. You’d get interrupted by the time you got to your parenthetical remark.
How about this?: “Empathy and common sense lead me to most of the same conclusions that the Bible reaches.”
Even if you get cut off at the knees, you can probably get the first four words out.
[/QUOTE]
Empathy would be my primary response as well. Empathy, observation, and personal experience. Atheists can pick and choose verse from religious texts as well- here are a few of my favorites: Do unto others… (you know); hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful (Buddhism); do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you (Hinduism); what is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man (Judaism); respect for all life is the foundation (Native American) etc. Every religion that I am familiar with has a version of the Golden Rule- to me that means that empathy is a biological trait and not derived from religious teachings or any governing body, nor does can it be said that feelings of kindness and respect arose from a particular geographic region.
No one religion, philosophy, or governing document has the market cornered on condoning empathy for all living beings. When conditions permit: empathy and kindness are inherent.
(The versions of the Golden Rule that I referred to came from religioustolerance.org)