Somehow manages is exactly the kind of maligning that I was describing. That is a backhanded comment deliberately phrased to imply that atheists are not capable of good works and kind actions. And amoral people are not the subject here; atheists are. They are not interchangeable titles.
But your simple answer without insults is that all atheists are amoral because they reject God, who gave them morals in the first place. Which answers my question.
I agree those atheists are pretty annoying. You go to school and you have to say “One nation, under no god, because there is no god”. Then you have the money which says “We don’t trust God”. There is the Boy Scouts which require you to deny god to be admitted. As far as I know there are only professed atheists in Congress because no one will vote for believers. Congress opens each day with a recitation of the denial of god and every Thanksgiving day the president issues a proclamation that god is not to be thanked for the bounty of the harvest. There are all the factions of atheists fighting each other and planting car bombs. The worst is the sectarian violence between atheists and agnostics.
It’s tough being a believer, I don’t know how you put up with those pushy atheists.
I grok this. The problem is that the fundamentalist religious view is actually too pessimistic to accept this. The fundie Christian world-view is that we are naturally inclined to do bad (original sin and all that), and it is only God that prompts us to do good. So again, no God = state of nature = people being bad. So even if atheists do good, there is no belief they will continue to do good without any known motivator to continue. And “we’re wired to do good and act cooperatively” cuts no ice, because fundies don’t believe that either.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
There are all the factions of atheists fighting each other and planting car bombs. The worst is the sectarian violence between atheists and agnostics.
QUOTE]
Heh. thank you
Gosh, considering that I posted it, you might want to actually check with me before assuming something is “deliberately phrased” to malign you. Touchy much? You don’t know me well, but be assured that when I want to insult you or your beliefs, I won’t be anywhere near that subtle. You’re in such a hurry to climb on your high horse and be insulted that you cruised right by my point, which is that if a person – atheist or otherwise – succeeds – i.e., manages – in being/ to be a good person, it’s nobody’s business what their morals are, or even if they have any.
My simple answer is nothing of the kind. But that certainly is the accepted fundie POV, and – as I said – it’s hardly shocking. In their view, if morals come from God, and you reject God, then you reject everything that comes from God (including morals). The obvious fallacy in this, of course, is that if morals come from God, He can still give morals to people who reject Him, because his abilities and gifts are not dependent on their belief in Him. Why this escapes many fundies is a different question. But they’re not very good at accommodating anyone who doesn’t embrace their world-view, and that’s as true of non-Christians and non-fundie Christians as it is of atheists.
I also find it a bit of a pisser, frankly, that out of two posts that pretty clearly were meant to be explanatory and were posted in good will, you extracted the one phrase you felt comfortable being insulted by.
If all you’re really looking for is confirmation of your own suspicions so you can nail yourself to a cross with them, and then blame the Christians for hoisting you up there, you really don’t need my help to do it.
Oh, but we do; other people and the real world. We have to make our moral decisions on the basis of the consequences to objectively real human beings, not the whim of an imaginary god. God being fictional, he will of course “tell” you to have whichever “morals” are convenient and profitable for you. A true Christian can kill millions, grinning all the while and never feel guilt because he’s just doing God’s will. Everything he does is God’s will, because God is a figment of his imagination.
I believe they hate me, because the essence of Christianity is hate for everything but itself. It’s a monotheism; it by nature is hostile to everything but itself.
As a kid, I read an article in the religious section of the newpaper by some bishop claiming that it was better to kill in the name of Kali, that to be an atheist and harm no one. Murdering in the name of a goddess upholds faith, you see.
With that as your understanding of Christianity, it’s no surprise you believe they hate you. When you think you’re a nail, everything looks like a hammer.
Oh, come on. Cite?
Ideally though (and I admit, this is ideally), a Christian should be accountable to a standard, an actual written standard, beyond oneself. The fact that many C’tians have rationalized their way around that standard does not negate the existence of this standard & the C’tians responsibility to it. Most atheists & most C’tians react to the BIG SOCIALLY MORAL QUESTIONS much the same way- else, there would be much more murder, theft & adultery than there is. We all know a stable society, family, & personal life cannot be had if life, property & relationships can be violated with impunity. But ultimately, still, as Doestoyevski (sp?!) said “Without God, everything is permissible”. Ayn Rand did try to establish an atheistic rational for a rigorous morality (which of course excused her own adultery). How successful she was is debatable. In the long run tho, if there are no external absolutes by which to judge the most powerful person/group, then the most powerful person/group is absolute.
No, I am sorry for misunderstanding. I didn’t realize that you were speaking for fundie Christians instead of sharing your personal point of view.
Actually. I prefer your *a priori * explanation of why Christians might find atheists amoral. The alternative frightens me more. If Christians feel that atheists reject Christianity in order to behave in a manner inconsistent with rules and laws; then we atheists truly have an image problem.
I feel misunderstood- not persecuted.
And though unrelated to this topic, I do not discuss my lack of faith with anyone other than my immediate circle. My understanding of Christianity is that one of the tenents is to help the unchurched. I truly feel bad when an acquaintence feels sorry for me and feels it necessary to help me find salvation. I don’t want a casual friend or a stranger to feel that I am doomed and that they are in some way personally responsible for helping me find God. I avoid the topic in real life at all costs and have had only one instance in 36 years of a Christian trying to help me see the light.
Given that I don’t believe atheists are inherently amoral, that makes sense to me. And a lot of what is seen as altruism has a vein of self-interest in it as well. People who see good deeds as existing in a vacuum, instead of linked to what is good for the person performing said deeds, are definitely not looking at the big picture. For example, you don’t have to believe Jesus wants you to suffer the little children to decide to take care of the children in the community. It’s in your best interest to have the next generation survive to look after you when you’re elderly; who else is going to pay for your social security? Being “good” almost always has benefits to it, even if they’re just emotional ones, so why should we expect that people who don’t believe in God would not desire them too?
What do you propose are the external moral absolutes? How did you come up with them?
I agree, although atheists can have written moral codes and can be accountable to things like society. I think the ideal you’re talking about makes a big difference to some people when they look at the issue, but in real terms I think it’s pretty much potayto/potahto.
I think “scapegoated” might be the most accurate term. We’re misunderstood alright, but I don’t think it’s just because we’ve failed to get the message out there.
However the interpretation of the standard is just as relativistic, if not more so, as morals deduced logically and secularly. Otherwise you folks would still be celebrating the “real” Sabbath. There are also many standards - the one you adopt is more an accident of birth than anything else. Your particular faith is certainly a matter of personal choice.
Since we don’t know what the external absolute that is correct is, then the so-called absolute is imposed on a society by the most powerful group. The Christians in Spain imposed their standard at the expense of the Jews, the Taliban imposed their’s at the expense of the Christians.
It seems that history tells us that the freest societies, like ours, don’t impose an external absolute at all. In America, almost everything is up for reconsideration, (except that everything is up for reconsideration.) I’m quite happy that the Moslems who live in my town can’t impose their customs on me, and I’m quite happy that you can’t impose Christianity on me, even if you think it would be for my own good.
Now, if you want to argue that you know the correct absolute, we can do that in another thread. But the moment you appeal to faith, you lose.
:dubious: You expect me to find a cite for a minor newpaper story I read nearly 30 years ago ? I seriously doubt one exists, much less that I can find it.
I think the truth is a more beautifully nuanced than that. I really don’t believe it has to be black or white. and I believe that various scriptures do allow for greater access to Heaven than fundies would allow. I also think this consideration bugs militant atheists, because it removes the “they say yer goin’ ta hell iffin ya don’t B’LEEEEVE” plank from their argument.
But I get tired of debating the merits and collective failures and sins of Christianity. Nothing new gets said and positions just harden. I prefer to live as Christ to the best of my abilities in the real world. For me that means loving everyone and serving victims of injustice and poverty. If i knew you in real life, that would include you, if the the shoe fits. I am not saying it does.
I find this statement reprehensible. It is designed to insult and NOT to move forward any argument. You, BadChad , have displayed your shallowness and bitterness, and have thus, have removed any further comments you make from further consideration.
I have to say, I agree with badchad on the subject of fundamentalist Christians. They do know the Bible pretty well: it says that you’re going to burn if you’re not a Christian, and it condemns homosexuality harshly too. Once upon a time, some Christians decided that they couldn’t be hip, open-minded liberals and still be Christians, so they decided to ignore those two parts, even though they are printed clear as day.
IMO, if you don’t see any reason to believe in God, then being an atheist is inherently an honest, right, principled thing to do.
… while religious people purport to have an absolute grounding (often to be found in a book or other set of traditional teachings) that sets out morals and principles which are (a) in such vague language that they can be interpreted to mean just about anything, and (b) so contradictory that they can’t all be followed. This inevitably means that religious people in fact pick and choose those parts of the “absolute grounding” they will acknowledge, and those parts they ignore, while claiming to receive their god(s) guidance through introspection and prayer. Remarkably, the end result is that religious people (whatever they may piously intone) in fact practice morals and principles derived from sheer pragmatic utilitarianism and personal preference, while pretending they derive them from somewhere else.