Atheist VS Christian morality: Good is evil and vice versa

[AtheistLemon]

Morality is a complicated issue and it seems as if everyone wants an objective standard of it, while others think it to be entirely subjective. Ultimately though, I think that everyone follows some degree of objective understanding, even if they have subjective alterations between person to person. For example, no one considered normal by all standards of society would believe that senseless murder is okay, while nearly everyone considered normal believe self-defense is justified and killing your attacker if he has intent to kill you is morally okay.

I think our understanding of self-defense is also why many value pacifists as such righteous men, and often times prophets. So really, we all follow a degree of objective morality set into play by our culture, which evolves again and again.

[1liesalot]

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

Not to mention Harry Potter.

[Hydra009]

Part of the problem is the number of erroneous notions that exist within your own supposed understanding of Christians and what they believe.

Spare me the feeble insults.  Whether you're willing to admit it or not, these are actually fairly common beliefs.

Some of the things that your so-called Christian named are essentially the same thing.

No need for the "so-called" there, bucko.  He's a real guy.  I even linked him.  And he's exactly your type of pious crazy.

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.

Yeah.  Those adults living together and possibly even having sex!  How terrible that must be for believers.  How intrusive these couples must be into other people's private affairs.

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.

Correct.  It has little to do with the Bible.  "Traditional morality" seldom is. 

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.

In related news, cars don't drive on roads.  They simply express themselves along roads in perfect harmony with their nature. 

A simple rhetorical parlor trick does not excuse believers from problems inherent with divine command theory, a theory that is still quite popular (though not as popular) in religious circles long after saner people abandoned it.  I doubt you even truly disagree with that theory.  If you get your musts and mustn'ts from on high, then you're in the same camp as them.

Also, I would point out that while God has placed rules around sexual behavior, due to its sacredness, He does not control it.

Whew!  That's good to hear.  For a while there, I almost thought that you thought that non-Christians should be beholden to rules of a god they don't even believe in.  Imagine something like that happening.  A lot.  In ancient history.  In recent history.  And even currently.

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's a story in the bible about God perpetuating genocide.  So, yeah, you're the one who's on shaky ground.

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.

Pro-lifer and deeply religious?  Why, I never would have guessed.

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 abolition movement was largely built by Christians (and opposed by equally pious slaveholders).  The western world was also largely Christian.  Funny how that works out.  But the Bible itself is strangely silent on the practice.  Almost like it was written by people who were inured to the practice rather than some far-sighted supernatural being.

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.

I think you forgot the baby-eating and devil horns on my side and didn't decorate yours with enough flowers and laurels, but meh, basically correct.  Atheists (btw, please don't use 'the atheist', you come across like a Nazi talking about 'the Jew') by definition don't believe in a god and therefore, don't look at moral issues with religious decrees in mind.  Christians do.  This skews their perceptions and conclusions.

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.

I'm dying to hear how same-sex marriage or adoption denies intimacy between two people.  *bakes a giant tub of popcorn*

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.

It's unintentionally hilarious how you put this, but yes, atheists tend to not consider post-death harm.

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.

^ Unintentional endorsement of masturbation and oral sex.   

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.

So now contraception and divorce are immoral, and same-sex parents and single-parent households have had "terrible consequences for society".  And whether you see any of the above as immoral hinges on whether or not you subscribe to "God's design for men and women".  Thanks for proving my point!

[wbuentello]

What I find most vexing about all the abrahamic religions is the morality issue. Regardless of where their starting point is and how cleverly they disguise it with rhetorical mechanisms the fact remains that morality, to them is an externality. It is not up for debate or examination.  Within religious circles it certainly has been subject to discussion and debate but usually just as a means of clarification and modernization. There are obviously many different levels of religious commitment but if you are truly pious then this shit just isn't up for any type of real fundamental debate. Religion becomes a moral crutch. One no longer needs to examine his/her morality or beliefs. In addition everything good that happens is gods doing and everything bad is the devil, or at least his influence. Absolution is usually guaranteed, as long as you are sincere, regardless of the frequency or nature of your particular transgression. It has a very interesting effect of externalizing everything of which in secular ethics must be rigorously examined and justified. I'm not implying that secular ethics is always right but at least the possibility for correction and adaptation is there. The average religious individual has a retarded moral sense due to its utter lack of use. Morality originates, not from above, but from our social nature. Our social construct is always in flux, to a great extent, and therefore so must our ethical construct be just as dynamic and responsive. A static ethical construct is... Well, unethical. This is the root cause of religions harm. Religions inherent dogmatic nature condemns it to atrophy.

[GSOgymrat]

I like Jonathan Haidt's theory of liberal-conservative moral philosophy. It's not perfect but I think he is on to something when he demonstrates that when looking at moral issues from five dimensions:  1) Care for Others/Do no harm; 2) Fairness/Justice/Equality; 3) In-Group Loyalty; 4) Respect for Authority; and 5) Purity, conservatives tend to consider all five dimensions where liberals tend to focus on dimensions 1 and 2. It helps me understand Odoital's perspective even though it is completely different from my own, although I confess I don't believe Odoital and I could ever truly understand each other.

[Termin]

  From a conversation I had with a christian, of course murder came up and morality I posted a reason why I was against murder (per his request) and this was part of the response.

Ultimately, if a person does not have Jesus Christ as their authority figure, there is no right and wrong. An atheist has no laws that govern their actions. If it's man's laws alone that matter, then there is no absolute law, such as murder is wrong. I follow the commandments of God, which include not murdering. Not because I think it's ok and good for society. But because God said so. Athiest have no answer to god, therefore no law.

[Mike Cl]

Morality is a complicated issue and it seems as if everyone wants an objective standard of it, while others think it to be entirely subjective. Ultimately though, I think that everyone follows some degree of objective understanding, even if they have subjective alterations between person to person. For example, no one considered normal by all standards of society would believe that senseless murder is okay, while nearly everyone considered normal believe self-defense is justified and killing your attacker if he has intent to kill you is morally okay.

I think our understanding of self-defense is also why many value pacifists as such righteous men, and often times prophets. So really, we all follow a degree of objective morality set into play by our culture, which evolves again and again.

This is what I mean by there is no objective morality.  You mentioned murder as being morally wrong in this society.  Yes, that is so.  But do you mean to suggest that there are no societies that don't condone murder?  We don't condone murder within our own group or society for that would diminish that society and destroy it's stability and thus damage the entire group.  There are societies that don't condone murder within that group, but have no problem with it if you kill one of 'them' or an outsider.  That's why I say it is subjective.  The moral rules change as a group changes. 

Can you point out a universal rule of conduct that is always bad?  And by universal, I don't mean just today, but in all of history?  I can't think of a single one.  All human actions have been condoned by some group or society somewhen or somewhere.  Therefore, all such rules are subjective.

[wbuentello]

I've always been baffled by the concept that humans possess no intrinsic moral sense.  I think by definition this would imply that people who subscribe to this kind of thought are the truly amoral ones. Basically they are saying that without their god to tell them what is wrong or right that they would be completely clueless and prone to various atrocities just because... Is a moral crutch

[Mike Cl]

I've always been baffled by the concept that humans possess no intrinsic moral sense.  I think by definition this would imply that people who subscribe to this kind of thought are the truly amoral ones. Basically they are saying that without their good to tell them what is wrong or right that they would be completely clueless and prone to various atrocities just because... Is a moral crutch

Yeah, I've often thought that, too. 

[wbuentello]

Can you point out a universal rule of conduct that is always bad?  And by universal, I don't mean just today, but in all of history?  I can't think of a single one.  All human actions have been condoned by some group or society somewhen or somewhere.  Therefore, all such rules are subjective.

There are indeed some universal morals. These have been observed across cultures, time and environments. There are anthropologists who have studied this subject extensively. A couple of examples are no lying, no stealing and no murder. And of course this is indeed, as you say, within their specific group. If you want to say that universal morals need apply to also non-group members then so be it but within the group there are indeed universal morals

[Mike Cl]

There are indeed some universal morals. These have been observed across cultures, time and environments. There are anthropologists who have studied this subject extensively. A couple of examples are no lying, no stealing and no murder. And of course this is indeed, as you say, within their specific group. If you want to say that universal morals need apply to also non-group members then so be it but within the group there are indeed universal morals

Yes, I do mean to include our moral actions not only within a group, but outside that group as well.  If killing somebody is okay outside the group, the it is obvious that the moral against killing is subjective.  To begin with, lying, stealing and murder need to be defined.  For example, in Sparta it was expected that the males would steal--just don't get caught.  Stealing from Athenians was perfectly okay.  Murder depends upon the definition. If killing within the group was murder, perhaps killing outside was called something else.  But even so, if it is immoral to kill somebody within the group how could it be moral to do so outside the group.  Morals are thought of and usually meant to be applied everywhere and everywhen. 

[Termin]

Can you point out a universal rule of conduct that is always bad?  And by universal, I don't mean just today, but in all of history?  I can't think of a single one.  All human actions have been condoned by some group or society somewhen or somewhere.  Therefore, all such rules are subjective.

  Speaking against the current god.

[AtheistLemon]

This is what I mean by there is no objective morality.  You mentioned murder as being morally wrong in this society.  Yes, that is so.  But do you mean to suggest that there are no societies that don't condone murder?  We don't condone murder within our own group or society for that would diminish that society and destroy it's stability and thus damage the entire group.  There are societies that don't condone murder within that group, but have no problem with it if you kill one of 'them' or an outsider.  That's why I say it is subjective.  The moral rules change as a group changes. 

Can you point out a universal rule of conduct that is always bad?  And by universal, I don't mean just today, but in all of history?  I can't think of a single one.  All human actions have been condoned by some group or society somewhen or somewhere.  Therefore, all such rules are subjective.

Rape.

At the very least, before Religion arose, we had universal rules. Chimpanzees and other greater primates will beat rapists to death, or near death. Rape is universally considered wrong by every culture I can think of. Even in Islamic cultures, rape laws are more lenient but rape is still considered wrong.

[Mike Cl]

Rape.

At the very least, before Religion arose, we had universal rules. Chimpanzees and other greater primates will beat rapists to death, or near death. Rape is universally considered wrong by every culture I can think of. Even in Islamic cultures, rape laws are more lenient but rape is still considered wrong.

Once again, what do you define rape as?  Is it simply sex with another person without their consent?  If so, then rape was acceptable within the US not long ago.  A slave was a piece of property and if the owner of said property wanted to have sex with it, then that owner could do so.  That man was not judged as being immoral.  I would suggest that every army that has walked the earth since time began has 'raped' as the spoils of war.  Maybe is was, at times, considered to be not right, but it was seldom punished.  So, it is probably just about universal that rape within a society or group is immoral.  But not always outside of that society. The members of all religions have raped their enemies--it must not be all that universal.

[AtheistLemon]

Once again, what do you define rape as?  Is it simply sex with another person without their consent?  If so, then rape was acceptable within the US not long ago.  A slave was a piece of property and if the owner of said property wanted to have sex with it, then that owner could do so.  That man was not judged as being immoral.  I would suggest that every army that has walked the earth since time began has 'raped' as the spoils of war.  Maybe is was, at times, considered to be not right, but it was seldom punished.  So, it is probably just about universal that rape within a society or group is immoral.  But not always outside of that society. The members of all religions have raped their enemies--it must not be all that universal.

You're forgetting evolution is influenced just as much by culture and social norms as by the natural processes. Even if there are no universal rules, we obviously evolved altruism for a reason, and creating these moral laws simply helps reinforce altruism to benefit all of society. Religion has simply corrupted them.