Atheist VS Christian morality: Good is evil and vice versa

[Hydra009]

I've noticed that when it comes to the "moral issues", conservative Christians and atheists are mutually opposed more than any other two groups.  What one group considers immoral the other group doesn't have a problem with.  For example, Christians opposed to celebrating Halloween while atheists don't have a problem with that.  And atheists having a problem with childhood indoctrination, and Christians don't have a problem with that.

The Amazing Atheist had a discussion with VenomFangX (youtube creationist and Christian apologist).  VenomFang brought up a Barna Group poll (the Barna Group is an evangelical Christian polling organization, so take the link with a pillar of salt) which states that atheists were most likely to reject "traditional morality".  VenomFang gives some interesting examples of traditional morality:  opposition to illegal drug use, excessive drinking, sex out of wedlock, cohabitation, abortion, obscene language, gambling, pornography, homosexuality, and bisexuality.

And like the Amazing Atheist, I don't have any strong moral objection to any of these things.  That said, the first two are the most troubling because when it gets to the point of substance abuse, they can be very harmful.  Not opposed to abortion or gambling.  Or cussing, for fuck's sake.  And the rest are all sex crimes.  I don't consider any of those reprehensible at all.

But what strikes me as strange is the completely different angles Christians and atheists approach these issues.

For Christians in general and VenomFang in particular, their morality is defined by Godly decree.  (Although I think we both know that this God character is just a mask and it's ultimately people making these judgments)  And God apparently is in the business of regulating and controlling sex more than any other human behavior.    Slavery?  God's pretty much okay with that.  Genocide?  It depends on the victim.  Gay sex?  Worst thing ever!

For me, and probably a lot of atheists, I'm more concerned about harm.  Who's the victim?  How were they harmed?  And for most of VenomFang's list, there is no victim.  Two gay guys have sex, there's no victim.  An unwed straight couple has sex, there's no victim.  Taking the Lord's name in vain, there's no victim.  Or at least none forthcoming.  So there's little wonder how we come to completely opposite conclusions.

In many countries, conservative Christians and atheists live side by side with completely mutually exclusive notions of what's permissible and what's forbidden.  And only one set of rules can govern a society, which necessarily brings us in political conflict with each other - a political conflict that can only have one victor.

[Givemeareason]

And I agree completely except I think we should be opposed to Halloween as well. :-)

[Munch]

And I agree completely except I think we should be opposed to Halloween as well. :-)

Why doesn't that surprise me..

You do understand that christmas was stolen by christians and is actually the celebration saturnalia?

[drunkenshoe]

And I agree completely except I think we should be opposed to Halloween as well. :-)

Watch it buddy. I have an American invasion request pending as we speak to get a week long, booze mandatory, full throttle Halloween holiady! You are on thin ice.

[GrinningYMIR]

Watch it buddy. I have an American invasion request pending as we speak to get a week long, booze mandatory, full throttle Halloween holiady! You are on thin ice.

I'm working on it, the landings are scheduled to begin on June 2, with a direct pincer assault being planned for Istanbul

[trdsf]

The thing is, Christian (and most other religion-based) morality isn't about being a good person.  It's about being a controlled person.  It's a hangover from when the leader was 'anointed by god'--for example, Brits, Canadians, and other Commonwealthers may see D:G:REG:FID:DEF or the like on their coins, which roughly translates as 'queen by the grace of god and defender of the fairh'.  If you didn't behave the way the priests told you to, you were in both religious and political trouble as you were in opposition to "god's chosen king/queen".

I suspect this is where morality as a social function arose, as a way to impose order on the first large tribes/proto-villages.  The shaman keeps 'em afraid of challenging the chief on the grounds of BECAUSE I SAID SO!! and is given a piece of temporal power himself.

[stromboli]

VenomFang gives some interesting examples of traditional morality:  opposition to illegal drug use, excessive drinking, sex out of wedlock, cohabitation, abortion, obscene language, gambling, pornography, homosexuality, and bisexuality.

Opposition to illegal drug use and excessive drinking are legal/common sense issues. All the rest come under the heading of sinful behavior according to religion. That is not traditional morality, that is what Christianity defines as sinful. They all used to be illegal or rejected. Now, sex out of wedlock, cohabitation, abortion, obscene language, gambling, pornography, homosexuality and bisexuality are either not illegal or allowed, depending in where you are.

It is not evil if you don't make it evil.

[Termin]

  Traditional morality , what a lovely turn of phrase  , and like most language in the bible , it is so perfectly ambiguous that it can mean anything.

 

 

[Hydra009]

The thing is, Christian (and most other religion-based) morality isn't about being a good person.  It's about being a controlled person.

Right.  It's about submission.  Doing what you're told.

While secular morality tends to be more about people's well-being.  Doing something or not doing something because of how it'll affect others.

These two approaches are leagues from each other.  Imagine a world in which religion-based morality is the norm.  Now imagine a world in which secular morality is the norm.  Quite the difference, eh?

[stromboli]

With a world governed by secular morality we would see a lot more naked people strolling the streets....

[spoiler][/spoiler]

[Hydra009]

Traditional morality , what a lovely turn of phrase  , and like most language in the bible , it is so perfectly ambiguous that it can mean anything.

Exactly.  And of course, the drug use and abortion issues are actually fairly modern issues.

Another thing that struck me about it is that "traditional" values have changed a lot over the years.  Divorce steadily became more acceptable.  Racism has become a lot less acceptable, even to religious folks.  Working on the Sabbath is barely an issue anymore.  Tattoos are more acceptable.  Etc.

Morality isn't like the Ten Commandments, with edicts etched into stone.  It's more like the Constitution, littered with amendments and repeals.  Religions, by definition, are traditionalistic and lag behind the people's changing moral views.  But the fact that religious morality changes at all severely damages the proposition that morality is authored by God.  Because why would an all-knowing being change his mind?

[Desdinova]

With a world governed by secular morality we would see a lot more naked people strolling the streets....

[spoiler][/spoiler]

Apparently the full bush look is still the rage in that city.

[Termin]

  Gave this some thought and I came to a conclusion, that if I ever find myself in this sort of argument again.

  Justifying my actions ? sure I have no problem with that. I will take responsibility for what I do  But why the $%$ do I have to justify my morals ?

[stromboli]

Ah yes, morality. Its immoral for gay people to have consensual sex but not immoral for the Republican party to legally mandate 2% sales tax for the wealthy while lumping 27-35% on the poor and middle class. That be Jesus right there. Sending a plane load of bibles to Nepal after the earthquake, morality in action. Making a saint out of Mother Teresa after she forces poor women who are suffering to endure more pain while she herself receives treatment from the best doctors, all the while stuffing millions into a Swiss bank account. Yup, that is certainly moral.

And his Popaliciousness sitting on a golden throne telling starving African minions they can't use birth control and abstinence will stop climbing birth rates and stop HIV/AIDS from spreading. And gay people are condemned, and Charlie Hebdo was evil for mocking religion. That be some morality right there.

Leaders of the Mormon religion excommunicating gay members who are legally married- moral. Creating a "pro LGBT" freedom of religion law that allows people to discriminate against gays, atheists or whoever because their religion trumps human rights- Moral.

Morality just oozing out the cracks, I swear.

[Odoital778412]

I've noticed that when it comes to the "moral issues", conservative Christians and atheists are mutually opposed more than any other two groups.  What one group considers immoral the other group doesn't have a problem with.  For example, Christians opposed to celebrating Halloween while atheists don't have a problem with that.  And atheists having a problem with childhood indoctrination, and Christians don't have a problem with that.

The Amazing Atheist had a discussion with VenomFangX (youtube creationist and Christian apologist).  VenomFang brought up a Barna Group poll (the Barna Group is an evangelical Christian polling organization, so take the link with a pillar of salt) which states that atheists were most likely to reject "traditional morality".  VenomFang gives some interesting examples of traditional morality:  opposition to illegal drug use, excessive drinking, sex out of wedlock, cohabitation, abortion, obscene language, gambling, pornography, homosexuality, and bisexuality.

And like the Amazing Atheist, I don't have any strong moral objection to any of these things.  That said, the first two are the most troubling because when it gets to the point of substance abuse, they can be very harmful.  Not opposed to abortion or gambling.  Or cussing, for fuck's sake.  And the rest are all sex crimes.  I don't consider any of those reprehensible at all.

But what strikes me as strange is the completely different angles Christians and atheists approach these issues.

For Christians in general and VenomFang in particular, their morality is defined by Godly decree.  (Although I think we both know that this God character is just a mask and it's ultimately people making these judgments)  And God apparently is in the business of regulating and controlling sex more than any other human behavior.    Slavery?  God's pretty much okay with that.  Genocide?  It depends on the victim.  Gay sex?  Worst thing ever!

For me, and probably a lot of atheists, I'm more concerned about harm.  Who's the victim?  How were they harmed?  And for most of VenomFang's list, there is no victim.  Two gay guys have sex, there's no victim.  An unwed straight couple has sex, there's no victim.  Taking the Lord's name in vain, there's no victim.  Or at least none forthcoming.  So there's little wonder how we come to completely opposite conclusions.

In many countries, conservative Christians and atheists live side by side with completely mutually exclusive notions of what's permissible and what's forbidden.  And only one set of rules can govern a society, which necessarily brings us in political conflict with each other - a political conflict that can only have one victor.

Part of the problem is the number of erroneous notions that exist within your own supposed understanding of Christians and what they believe.  Some of the things that your so-called Christian named are essentially the same thing.  Cohabitation is only a problem because it is assumed that premarital sex is taking place or the appearance of such impropriety could be a stumbling block to other believers.  I’m not aware of any prohibition against gambling or playing games with or for money.  Some denominations my frown on it, but it has nothing to do with Biblical prohibitions.  The idea that morality comes by way of God’s decree is not an accurate view of morality.  Christianity rejects the idea that morality is some arbitrary function of God’s power.  We also reject the idea that God is responding to something outside of Himself.  From a Christian perspective, morality is not anterior to God (logically prior to Him) but rooted in His nature.  Morality is not grounded ultimately in God’s commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands.  In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good because God always acts in perfect harmony with His nature.

Also, I would point out that while God has placed rules around sexual behavior, due to its sacredness, He does not control it.  You are free to violate those rules at will.  With regard to the other accusations, you go to farther than reason will take you when you say that God approves of slavery or genocide.  There are a lot of things that God didn’t explicitly condemn that Christians believe are deeply wrong.  And yes, that would include women choosing to murder their preborn children for the sake of their own convenience.  In addition, you may want to make note of the difference between descriptive and prescriptive acts in the Bible.  Lastly, I would simply point out that the anti-slavery movement in the western world was largely a Christian movement built upon Christian ideas and motivations.

The reason Christians and atheists approach these circumstances differently is that we have different starting points.  The atheist ultimately thinks he came from nothing and is destined to return there.  The Christian ultimately thinks that we were created for a purpose, and that purpose will not find its full expression until after this life of deep consequence is lived out in all of its beauty and horror for and to the glory of our creator.  The atheist ultimately believes that he/she is the master of his/her own life, and the Christian understands that we are contingent, finite, fragile beings whose life is like a vapor and is over in the blink of an eye, relative to the eternity that awaits him/her.  We believe that men and women are unique and special, in that fathers and mothers bring something unique and necessary to the production and rearing of children.  We believe that sex is a sacred act that binds the souls of two people together in an intimacy not meant for separation.  Same-sex marriage, polyamory, bisexuality, fornication, and same-sex adoption deny the same.  Christians believe that there will be consequences for the acts we perform here on Earth, and not all of them will be immediate.  Some of those consequences won’t come until after death, and so the so-called harm cannot be rightly judged from this side of eternity.  The atheist believes that the lights simply go out at death and so have no incentive to even attempt to tally the harms or consider the longer-term post-physical death realities.

With regard to harm or the so-called victimless crime, I would say this.  The mechanics of the human body appears to have been designed for particular purposes.  If I were dispositionally incapable of making use of parts of my body for their intended purpose, I have a feeling that people wouldn’t be rushing to affirm me in my dispositions.  So if I were dispositionally, though not physically or mechanically, incapable of using my legs for anything but jumping and my hands for anything but hitting, I think people would understand this as a limitation, malady, or even a handicap on my part and treat it accordingly.  The same thing applies to those who cannot make use of their sexual organs in the way that they were intended.  Male and female organs fit together and when brought together often produce human offspring.  This is a rather obvious clue as to their purpose.  Of course, pleasure is an attending part of that purpose, likely placed there to incentivize the only highly cogitative and volitionally free creature God saw fit to create, to seek out sexual intimacy.  So while pleasure might be able to be achieved in any number of other ways, clearly, the intended purpose was for the pleasure to be expressed in the context of an act that can in general, as a rule, and by design…produce the next generation.  Affirming people in their dispositional or psychological inabilities, depriving children of a mother and father, and divorcing the sexual act from its necessary connection to children and the intimacy necessary for a long-term monogamous heterosexual union will not be a victimless crime.  Just as no-fault divorce and destigmatizing single-motherhood had terrible consequences for society and the criminal justice system, so too will the desacralization of sex and the denial of God’s design for men and women.