# I have decided to become an atheist (hypothetical) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 10, 2008, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723 "2008-04-10T03:23:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/261 "2008-04-11T13:58:33Z")
Religious morality isn’t invalid because it’s subjective, it’s invalid because its founding premise (the goodness & power of God, hence his authority to proscribe morality, I’d say) is false. This doesn’t invalidate atheist morality until you invalidate \*its own \*founding principles (currently, this seems to be summed up as “everything works out best for everyone altogether if we’re all nice to each other”, I think.) That’s what has to be attacked if you wish to invalidate atheist morality. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/262 "2008-04-11T13:59:00Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Atheists cannot establish that their principles are any better than religion. All attempts to do so bog down almost at once in begging the question, ad hominems, and simply asserting their first principles over and over. [/QUOTE] I think i’ve raised this objection with you before, but I can’t remember what came of it. Anyway, in some cases yes, atheists can, in that we are able to see the results we expect (or don’t) and so judge the effectiveness (if not the validity) of our morals. Religious people must take the metaphysical results of their actions on faith. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/263 "2008-04-11T14:21:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This is like saying, ‘if it is objectively true that the earth is round, how could anyone ever think it was flat?’ _What?_ This is just a _hopeless_ disanalogy. In any case, even a god’s morality wouldn’t be “objective” - he would just be _another subject_ to offer an opinion on the matter. One might as well say that there is an objective no.1 piece of music of all time. > [@](#): > > if religiously based morality is invalid because it is subjective, then atheist morality is equally invalid because it is equally subjective. Agreed, but just who is equating “subjective” with “invalid”, exactly? How is a subjective opinion _logically inconsistent_? I am saying that _my own_ morality is subjective, just that yours is too. > [@](#): > > The question is, is there any real basis for morality in an atheistic world? Just to clarify, if I were to provide a candidate explanation for how a form of morality might _evolve_ in a social hominid, would this count as a “real basis”? It sounds like you would count _every_ morality as “arbitrary” to some extent (_including_ religious ones, since they begin by accepting arbitrary premises such as “gods exist”, too). If so, I’d actually agree. For example, chimp morality is profoundly different to human morality with regards to killing male strangers as soon as you meet them, and those differences can be said to have evolved somewhat arbitrarily. If I were a chimp, _I’d_ kill male strangers as soon as I met one. Since I’m a human, I don’t. Is either response “objectively” or “_non_-arbitrarily” wrong? > [@Mr Dibble](#): > > Religious morality isn’t invalid because it’s subjective, it’s invalid because its founding premise (the goodness & power of God, hence his authority to proscribe morality, I’d say) is false. Then it’s not [invalid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity), but [unsound](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness), and even then, only in _your opinion_. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/264 "2008-04-11T14:28:59Z")
_Erratum_: objective **best** piece of music of all time. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/265 "2008-04-11T14:37:07Z")
[QUOTE=SentientMeat] Then it’s not [invalid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity), but [unsound](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness), and even then, only in _your opinion_. [/QUOTE] True, on both points. Must be more precise. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/266 "2008-04-11T15:05:51Z")
[QUOTE=SentientMeat] If any of the theists in this thoughtless mess of mischaracterisation are interested in learning possible mechanisms for the emergence of morality from nature, I’ll repeat the recommendation I made on the first page, which I assure you is worth [$3 and a mouse click](http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0140264450/ref=dp_olp_2). As for whether morality is “objective”, well, how _can_ it be if some people _subjectively disagree_ on whether a given action is right or wrong? (And since _theists_ seem to disagree just as subjectively between each other, religion therefore provides no more objective a morality. Even if gods exosted, their wishes would only ever be interpreted _subjectively_.) That is not to say that morality cannot be _studied_ objectively, of course, nor that if enough subjects set forth the consequences of their subjective morality, that this could not easily be confused with “objectivism”. [/QUOTE] You are missing the point again. No one other than me is being mischaracterized. I’m being asked to justify other people’s prejudices. The point of this is not that theist morality is objective. The argument is about the consequences of a sudden loss of belief that morality is objective. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/267 "2008-04-11T15:13:20Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] And equally, religionists cannot establish that their principles are any better than the principles of atheists. Sounds fair to me. [/QUOTE] This in a nutshell was the tack I took in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/268 "2008-04-11T15:23:32Z")
[QUOTE=Max Torque] Here’s the thing: you appear in this paragraph to be laboring under the mistaken impression that we obtain “morals” as children. As you noted above, we learn “behavior” as children, but actual morals come much later. In short, children who haven’t learned to reason fully are not moral beings. We can shape their behavior, but learning to do the right thing _because it is the right thing_ takes time and introspection. A young child is no more a moral being than a wild tiger. Trainable, yes, but not a moral being. I never claimed that I came out of the womb with a fully formed moral code, nor even that I graduated from high school as a moral being. I did and do claim, however, that if your only claim to moral rightness is divine decree, then your morality is still at the level of a trained child. [/quote] The moral training begins as a child. Did you when you developed your morals suddenly decide it’s ok to hit people or pull Sally’s hair? Did you decide that stealing is actually ok? If not, you may have come up with an intellectual reason for your behavior, but you didn’t really substantively change the morals as they were inculcated. > [@](#): > > Society can shape our behavior, but morality comes from within. And there are indeed moral systems that consider, from different perspectives, the wishes of society; that is why I suggested that you do some reading on the fundamentals. Familiarize yourself with that which seems to offend you. Hell, I took 2 1/2 years of religion classes and read the Bible front to back; why don’t you at least take a peek into what the “other side” is thinking? Well, I’ll familiarize myself with it, but it doesn’t offend me in any way. That’s a strawman that people keep pumping. > [@](#): > > If your morality is such that the only thing restraining you from wicked behavior is the threat of punishment, then you are a sociopath. In other words, if the threat of punishment is removed, how do you act? If your answer is, “Go nuts and do whatever I want,” you are in dire need of moral growth. Or, as it was so eloquently put on a restaurant placemat I read once, “Morality is what you do when no one’s looking.” That’s another straw man. That wasn’t the crux of the argument at all. The crux of the argument was that the main pillar of cultural upbringing disappears therefore the rest of everything must be called into question. It was about an existential crisis. No matter how many times I say this people ignore it, preferring the narrative that the victocrats of the offenderati manufactured. > [@](#): > > Having faith is something I ordinarily don’t mind a bit in a person. What I do object to is _blind_ faith. I can respect someone’s decision if they’ve put some thought into their religion, maybe even doubted a bit, and worked out in their mind that this makes sense for them. Now, if a person just goes through the motions because their parents did, blindly accepts what they’re told, and goes along with anything that’s “in the book” (or even worse, what someone else just _tells them_ is "in the book), I find that pathetic and sad. Do some introspection, and then if you arrive at your faith, good for you. I looked, and for me faith wasn’t the answer. I feel that deserves some modicum of respect. And it irks me greatly when God’s Warriors insult my decision, as though they are in some way superior simply because they have a lower threshold of gullibility and the firm belief that if they do not question, they are saved. Sure, I don’t have any disrespect for your decision. Reading disrespect into what I wrote is reading more than was intended. The central thought in my mind when writing it is that atheism has no cultural system in place by which to inculcate morality. Atheists like to dismiss the pedagogy of morality provided by a religious upbringing as though it’s a valueless crutch. I agree with you about blind faith btw. Is it possible that it is you that is levelling stereotypes at me, and not the other way around? > [@](#): > > I ask questions, and I try to figure out what’s real and what’s right. And any God who would punish me for that doesn’t deserve my respect. When I read the bible, the God of the bible doesn’t seem to be saying that. One of the most interesting interpretations of Abraham and Isaac on Mt. Moriah that I have heard, that put a lot of things in a different light for me, was that God didn’t have Abraham go up there to sacrifice Isaac. He had Abraham go up there so that he could illustrate the point that he would not ever ask him to sacrifice his son. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/269 "2008-04-11T15:26:23Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > You are missing the point again. _Again_? Where else in have I done so, given that my _only_ previous post was on the first page? > [@](#): > > The argument is about the consequences of a sudden loss of belief that morality is objective. Which I assume has happened to you _regardless_ of whether gods exist or not, since a god is just _one more subject_ to offer his opnion on the matter or what is moral. Like I said, if you suddenly _feel like_ taking or destroying the life of another human, you might suffer from a condition similar to psychopathy. If you are still _repelled_ by the idea of doing so, this might be because your cognitive abilities and emotional reactions have evolved in a certain way. You said you’re reading Pinker - keep at it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/270 "2008-04-11T15:28:01Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Well, gosh, if you talk about the one-on-a-million atheist who turns into a sociopath and imply this is a typical or likely outcome, I simply can’t imagine how anyone would object. [/quote] Well, they can object, but I am done giving time to the straw man. I stated that it wasn’t my intention, and I’m going to simply ignore anyone that wants to argue the straw man. > [@](#): > > Out of curiosity, how many theists are theists because their parents are theists? Is it just an astonishing coincidence that the one often shares the religious beliefs of one’s parents, or is there conditioning in effect? Is there a genetic difference between a Muslim and a Christian, one we might have observed had the infants been switched at birth? Yes, that was part of the point of my OP, to dismiss the value of all pedagogy as the experience of pedagogy of the hypothetical character in the OP had all been a lie, or more accurately, simply wrong. Yes, there are some genetic differences between Muslims and Christians, but mainly because of tribal adoption of the different creeds. > [@](#): > > Can I assume your earlier sweeping statement about the New Testament is subject to revision? What are you referring to? > [@](#): > > Actually, it’s no nihilistic at all. It’s quite wonderful and inspiring. The universe has lots of hydrogen, but heavier elements like Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen and Phosphorus are only formed in collapsing stars, in whose deaths these elements are scattered, to coalesce after an immensely long time into planets and the molecules we call “organic”, to randomly mix and compete and struggle and crawl from the muck and, after a billion years, we who are made of the stuff of the universe begin to contemplate the universe itself. > > That’s not nihilistic at all. I find it beautiful; infinitely more so than any creation myth I’ve ever heard. Yeah, but the way you described it wasn’t meaningless either, it was full of meaning. He used the word meaningless over and over. Why should I listen to the words of someone who thinks that what they are talking about is meaningless? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/271 "2008-04-11T15:28:07Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] The point of this is not that theist morality is objective. The argument is about the consequences of a sudden loss of belief that morality is objective. [/QUOTE] Sorry, I’m very late in joining this party, but… does anyone _really_ act as if morality is solely received and objective? What is it, really, that’s currently - right now - constraining you, or any normal, sane person from picking up a brick and cracking some skulls? I don’t believe it’s the fear of punishment by the law, or the fear of divine judgment or retribution, even in the case of very religious people. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/272 "2008-04-11T15:30:14Z")
[QUOTE=SentientMeat] _Again_? Where else in have I done so, given that my _only_ previous post was on the first page? Which I assume has happened to you _regardless_ of whether gods exist or not, since a god is just _one more subject_ to off his opnion on the matter or what is moral. Like I said, if you suddenly _feel like_ taking or destroying the life of another human, you might suffer from a condition similar to psychopathy. If you are still _repelled_ by the idea of doing so, this might be because your cognitive abilities and emotional reactions have evolved in a certain way. You said you’re reading Pinker - keep at it. [/QUOTE] Well I have no desire to kill anyone outside of Halo anyway. 😉 In fact my profession is a healing art, that incidentally requires a great deal of empathy. 😉 However, the point was not so much that the hypothetical WOULD kill someone, so much as they COULD kill someone due to the lack of restraint. Keeping all options open rather than committing to any restrictions on behavior. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/273 "2008-04-11T15:34:41Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] However, the point was not so much that the hypothetical WOULD kill someone, so much as they COULD kill someone due to the lack of restraint. [/QUOTE] But they COULD kill someone even _with_ the restraint, yes? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/274 "2008-04-11T15:36:22Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] Sorry, I’m very late in joining this party, but… does anyone _really_ act as if morality is solely received and objective? What is it, really, that’s currently - right now - constraining you, or any normal, sane person from picking up a brick and cracking some skulls? I don’t believe it’s the fear of punishment by the law, or the fear of divine judgment or retribution, even in the case of very religious people. [/QUOTE] Actually when I was a kid, I would’ve cracked more skulls if I was less afraid of my Mom. In some ways I wish I had because I let people torment me when I could’ve fought back, so the tormenting didn’t end. It wasn’t a fear of pain or damage because I am quite durable and have a high pain tolerance and knew that then. It was mainly fear of parental consequence so deeply ingrained that it was not rational. As an adult, I tossed out the teachings of my parents for a while because I didn’t trust anything they said. Because of my selfishness I hurt a few people, and decided that I didn’t want to live like that anymore. So now, it is not authority, but to say that authority did not play a part in it is silly. There are many things I don’t do because they are illegal, that I think should not be illegal, and I would do them if they were legal. Not necessarily rape and murder, but some things. I still find that some of the injunctions due to authority make sense to me as I grow older. I didn’t just one day transcend the need for authority. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/275 "2008-04-11T15:37:23Z")
[QUOTE=SentientMeat] But they COULD kill someone even _with_ the restraint, yes? [/QUOTE] Clearly, but there is a difference between someone who feels an injunction not to kill someone, and someone who doesn’t. There is a wide gulf between not doing it because of a moral pedagogy, and not doing it because you don’t want to mop up the blood. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/276 "2008-04-11T15:48:04Z")
[QUOTE=SentientMeat] _What?_ This is just a _hopeless_ disanalogy. [/quote] I don’t see that it is. Your argument was that morality couldn’t be objective because people disagree about it. The counter-argument is that people disagree about objective reality all the time. (Assuming such a thing exists.) > [@](#): > > In any case, even a god’s morality wouldn’t be “objective” - he would just be _another subject_ to offer an opinion on the matter. One might as well say that there is an objective no.1 piece of music of all time. Well, this is getting away from the OP, but if you consider God as the creator and source of reality, then He also created things that are objectively true. Arithmetic might be objectively true, but 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true because God created it that way. So God doesn’t exactly have an opinion; He is the authority. But this is a side track, as the OP is assuming atheism. > [@](#): > > Agreed, but just who is equating “subjective” with “invalid”, exactly? How is a subjective opinion _logically inconsistent_? I am saying that _my own_ morality is subjective, just that yours is too. This is fine, but the necessary consequence of this is that any morality is just as valid as any other. The Holocaust and the abolition of slavery are equally valid (or invalid) - just based on different, subjective moralities. > [@](#): > > Just to clarify, if I were to provide a candidate explanation for how a form of morality might _evolve_ in a social hominid, would this count as a “real basis”? No, evolution is almost tautological as a basis for morality. ‘Whatever leads to greater numbers of fertile offspring’ only works if you accept that ‘greater numbers of fertile offspring’ is the _summum bonum_. > [@](#): > > It sounds like you would count _every_ morality as “arbitrary” to some extent (_including_ religious ones, since they begin by accepting arbitrary premises such as “gods exist”, too). Yup, that’s pretty much it. > [@](#): > > If so, I’d actually agree. For example, chimp morality is profoundly different to human morality with regards to killing male strangers as soon as you meet them, and those differences can be said to have evolved somewhat arbitrarily. If I were a chimp, _I’d_ kill male strangers as soon as I met one. Since I’m a human, I don’t. Is either response “objectively” or “_non_-arbitrarily” wrong? No. > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > I think i’ve raised this objection with you before, but I can’t remember what came of it. > > Anyway, in some cases yes, atheists can, in that we are able to see the results we expect (or don’t) and so judge the effectiveness (if not the validity) of our morals. Religious people must take the metaphysical results of their actions on faith. As I recall, I think you are correct. There are instances where you can see the results of your actions, and others where you can’t. This can be true of both atheist and theist morality. If I assume that everyone would be happier if I follow the Golden Rule, then I cannot live out my life twice, once following it and once not, and compare the results. Similarly, if I assume that God wants me to donate 10% of my income to charity, I can see whether or not the money is wisely spent, but if there is no God, then I will never know that my assumption was incorrect. Of course, if I assume that I should do such-and-such because it will assist in the survival of the human species, I have to take it on faith as well, as I won’t be around to find out if I was wrong about that either. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/277 "2008-04-11T15:51:12Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] The crux of the argument was that the main pillar of cultural upbringing disappears therefore the rest of everything must be called into question. [/QUOTE] Assuming the antecedent again. Plus there’s a disconnect - why question “the rest of everything” until you’ve got a reason to? [QUOTE=mswas] It was about an existential crisis. [/QUOTE] Did you read _Existentialism is a Humanism_ yet? It’s a short piece. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/278 "2008-04-11T15:53:02Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] This doesn’t invalidate atheist morality until you invalidate \*its own \*founding principles (currently, this seems to be summed up as “everything works out best for everyone altogether if we’re all nice to each other”, I think.) That’s what has to be attacked if you wish to invalidate atheist morality. [/QUOTE] No, that’s begging the question. Atheist morality has to be established as valid first. You are merely asserting it. > [@](#): > > why question “the rest of everything” until you’ve got a reason to? Because otherwise, you are taking it on faith. Regards. Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/279 "2008-04-11T15:59:43Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Yes, that was part of the point of my OP, to dismiss the value of all pedagogy as the experience of pedagogy of the hypothetical character in the OP had all been a lie, or more accurately, simply wrong. Yes, there are some genetic differences between Muslims and Christians, but mainly because of tribal adoption of the different creeds. [/quote] Can you expand on this? Would a baby born of Muslim parents adopted by a Christian family start to show Muslim tendencies, whatever those are, in later life? Perhaps we’re using the word “genetic” in different ways. My claim is that there is no objective influence, but rather that a baby will grow up believing whatever his parents purport to believe and this is completely independent of any evidence for or against the existence of a god or gods. > [@](#): > > What are you referring to? This earlier statement of yours: > [@mswas](#): > > Even though the entire new testament is basically a message telling you to be kind to people, we are expected to defend against private piques and prejudices regularly. I take some minor issue with the word “entire”. There are numerous quotes, even of Jesus himself, that aren’t really very kind at all. > [@](#): > > Yeah, but the way you described it wasn’t meaningless either, it was full of meaning. He used the word meaningless over and over. Why should I listen to the words of someone who thinks that what they are talking about is meaningless? Well, nobody’s forcing you. I’m only addressing the reflexive brain-switching-off attitude you expressed, twice. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723/280 "2008-04-11T16:02:47Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] As I recall, I think you are correct. There are instances where you can see the results of your actions, and others where you can’t. This can be true of both atheist and theist morality. If I assume that everyone would be happier if I follow the Golden Rule, then I cannot live out my life twice, once following it and once not, and compare the results. Similarly, if I assume that God wants me to donate 10% of my income to charity, I can see whether or not the money is wisely spent, but if there is no God, then I will never know that my assumption was incorrect. [/quote] Sure, i’d agree with that. Atheism alone certainly doesn’t imply we can see all ends of our actions, even if we have a temporal restriction. But - and of course i’m generalising - I would wager that the amount of theists for whom their moral beliefs have effects on the metaphysical level is larger than the amount of atheists who, because of their particular moral beliefs, have a similar inability to know the results of what they do. > [@](#): > > Of course, if I assume that I should do such-and-such because it will assist in the survival of the human species, I have to take it on faith as well, as I won’t be around to find out if I was wrong about that either. That’s true, but i’ve frankly not come across any evolutionary moralists, and i’ve heard of only a few. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-decided-to-become-an-atheist-hypothetical/444723.md?page=15)