Atheist World View: Morality/Ethics

[B. W.]

How can modern Atheism even know what morally just morality is, without first having a Judaic/Christian perspective define what is morally right and morally wrong?

The common argument from atheist is that morality has nothing to do with religion because one can learn to be good, kind, ethically moral, and be an altruistic citizen without believing in God. Their claim is that ethical based morality transcends religion due to human natures ability to define what makes good-good and wrong-wrong through the realm of the human experience alone. In other words through the principle of, do unto others as you have them do unto you, is how one creates morally just morality.

Fact is the modern western Atheist lives in a social climate shaped by Judaic/Christian ethics and influenced by it. Not the other way around. Think about the evidence from history that disproves the atheist world view concerning morality/ethics deriving from human experience alone from both the ancient and modern records. The ancient world was brutal and barbaric and so have been the modern atheistic countries of the modern era.

Atheist like to cite a god who they don’t believe in committing immoral acts, yet, theirs goes unscrutinized – abortion, euthanasia – proven by the tract record of countries who gave up God. What of stealing and robbing people of their faith – would not that also contradict the great charge that atheism is morally superior? See how they justify theft? How can theft remain theft if there were no consequences to define it?

You see, modern atheist own a big debt to Judaic/Christian ethics that help shed light on what is morally good and morally wrong, yet, they refuse to acknowledge this influence. The backwaters of the historical record disprove that humanity can really actually define what is really morally good and what is really morally wrong: which notion, changes daily.
-
-
-

[Proinsias]

Morality influences religion, religion influences morality. To suggest that morality has nothing to do with religion seems ludicrous. The attempt at the moment to divorce morality from religion is an interesting experiment.

The debt to Christianity/Islam/Judism is not just a moral one. It permeates art, music, philosophy, mathematics, science, social institutions and day to day life. I imagine your average gay atheist male in the western world referring to God whilst in the throws of immoral decadence has a largely Christian influence behind the term 'God'.

On the other hand cultures which are not steeped in the Abrahamic traditions also appear to come to similar moral ideas as we see in the Abrahamic framework. Indigenous religions and Hinduism in it's various branches don't appear to me to show much moral differences to the abrahamic idea of morality - murder is bad but killing is acceptable.

Regimes which at some point decide there is need to wipe out religion tend to resort to pretty nasty methods as non-violent methods fail, part of the beauty of religion is that it can withstand any brutality imaginable - the suffering inflicted upon Christians martyrs over the past few thousand years is a shining testament to this. Religion has proven time and time again that those who think the world would be better off without it will fail to see the results of their ideas, it's never really been shown that the negation of religion leads to a wonderful world as even the most brutal attempts to eradicate it fail - John Lennon's imagination will never be tested in real life methinks. Whilst Mao's government or Stalin's regime led an attack on religion to say that the population as a whole abandoned religion seems pretty far fetched.

Being against abortion or euthanasia in general seem more like logical deductions than obvious facts of the Abrahamic framework. The amount of theft and murder in the name of the Abrahamic religions is beyond me. The complexity of the situation in Israel & Gaza is also beyond me but it seems some have decided one side are goodies and the other are baddies and no amount of human suffering will change that - I've recently spoken to a few on either side of the fence and to suggest the other side may have a point is like water off a ducks back, but I've yet to come across anyone in meat life with the level of conviction that Gman shows here, his goodies vs. baddies approach leaves me totally mystified.

Despite the horrendous atrocities committed by regimes attempting to stamp out religion it seems to me the places with the most favourable living conditions on the planet, by admittedly iffy quantifiable methods, are those who couldn't really care about religion. In areas where there is real commitment to uphold religious ideas, the extermination of religion or one religion vs another there is never ending trouble. In areas where people pay little heed to religion in general, either for or against, things seem more pleasant.

[B. W.]

Morality influences religion, religion influences morality. To suggest that morality has nothing to do with religion seems ludicrous. The attempt at the moment to divorce morality from religion is an interesting experiment.

The debt to Christianity/Islam/Judism is not just a moral one. It permeates art, music, philosophy, mathematics, science, social institutions and day to day life. I imagine your average gay atheist male in the western world referring to God whilst in the throws of immoral decadence has a largely Christian influence behind the term 'God'.

On the other hand cultures which are not steeped in the Abrahamic traditions also appear to come to similar moral ideas as we see in the Abrahamic framework. Indigenous religions and Hinduism in it's various branches don't appear to me to show much moral differences to the abrahamic idea of morality - murder is bad but killing is acceptable.

Regimes which at some point decide there is need to wipe out religion tend to resort to pretty nasty methods as non-violent methods fail, part of the beauty of religion is that it can withstand any brutality imaginable - the suffering inflicted upon Christians martyrs over the past few thousand years is a shining testament to this. Religion has proven time and time again that those who think the world would be better off without it will fail to see the results of their ideas, it's never really been shown that the negation of religion leads to a wonderful world as even the most brutal attempts to eradicate it fail - John Lennon's imagination will never be tested in real life methinks. Whilst Mao's government or Stalin's regime led an attack on religion to say that the population as a whole abandoned religion seems pretty far fetched.

Being against abortion or euthanasia in general seem more like logical deductions than obvious facts of the Abrahamic framework. The amount of theft and murder in the name of the Abrahamic religions is beyond me. The complexity of the situation in Israel & Gaza is also beyond me but it seems some have decided one side are goodies and the other are baddies and no amount of human suffering will change that - I've recently spoken to a few on either side of the fence and to suggest the other side may have a point is like water off a ducks back, but I've yet to come across anyone in meat life with the level of conviction that Gman shows here, his goodies vs. baddies approach leaves me totally mystified.

Despite the horrendous atrocities committed by regimes attempting to stamp out religion it seems to me the places with the most favourable living conditions on the planet, by admittedly iffy quantifiable methods, are those who couldn't really care about religion. In areas where there is real commitment to uphold religious ideas, the extermination of religion or one religion vs another there is never ending trouble. In areas where people pay little heed to religion in general, either for or against, things seem more pleasant.

I am speaking of the modern Militant Atheist movement. Their concept of Morality was shaped by Judaic/Christian tradition.

You are also correct that human beings can derive their own moral ethics through experience, but these change daily, the Judaic/Christian morality does not change. What all moral ethical standards do, either derived by experience or by the Judaic/Christian tradition is that all people break these. Thus all are guilty…

What modern Militant Atheist movement attempts to do is too erase and/or redefine consequences for the inability to live up to any morally ethical standard.

The Judaic/Christian tradition on the other hand teaches that one is held accountable and needs God’s forgiveness by God’s grace alone for breaking all ethical moral standards and also changed by God’s gracious hands alone.

The difference is the view on consequences for ones behavior. Humanity can never derive a set of unchanging ethically moral standards nor live by these due to human nature to touch wet paint, twist these standards to justify whatever they want to do.

Example: Marxist thought quote – The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…

When parts of the many become the few – what then? Who decides? Central Planners? You trust central planners for your children’s children in an ever changing moralizing climate?

See the point?
-
-
-

[Proinsias]

Hmmm,

I think the moral climate is always changing, the papers here today are reporting a huge moral rift in the Church of Scotland that is literally breaking it apart on a question of moral values and a Roman Catholic bishop has stepped in to compare David Cameron to the Emperor Nero. It is a stretch to me to say that Judaic/Christian morality does not change, there seems to be a never ending argument on here as to whether old standards apply or not. Islam is racked with it at the moment between those advocating violence & hatred and those advocating love. Christianity is a mass of arguments on contraception, sexuality, marriage, divorce, abortion, euthanasia, evolution, rape, Mormonism, etc.

Regardless of the religion of the central planners, if I understand the use of the phrase, their job is to balance the needs of the many and the few to a reasonable degree. I don't think anyone attempting to plan for the needs of many can fully consider the needs of every last person, we can but try.

I don't think people believing they will be judged by God really makes much difference. If only God can judge, people can do whatever the hell they want & suffer whatever punishment we throw at them under the impression God will judge them favourably. Equally a member of the Church of Satan, which is about the most extreme anti-Christian atheist philosophy I'm aware of, couldn't really care about the judgement of others either, both seems to boil down to no one on earth has the right to judge, follow your own chosen path.

I think the problem is not atheist vs Christian morals. It's militant fundamentalism, I'm scared of it whether it's dressed as a Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist or whatever. Atheist, Christian & Islamic fundies are all foaming at the mouth at each other. As they all blame each other and try to tear the other down, they merely strengthen the resolve of the others and make the world a more unpleasant place for the rest of us. Whilst I think this forum is on the whole populated by wonderful people I must admit I find the modern fundamentalist evangelical Christian movement, which I characterise as a mainly US phenomenon, rather worrying. I find John's posts on JW's doctrine interesting and he seems like a decent & knowledgable guy with a different pov, to those interacting with him here he's just wrong and that's that.

I think Spock nailed it when he quoted the Beatles to kick off his treatise - "All we need is love", the rest was waffling.

[Sam1995]

Atheists are moral beings. [Genesis 1:26]
Although for many who are not Christian, common-ground moral standards change with the society in which the people live. So, for example - execution was legal in the UK during the 1600's because some people were thought to be witches, many people agreed with this form of punishment. In 2012, the death penalty has been abolished and "witches" can live freely in the UK without anybody trying to stone them or throw them in a lake attached to a rock!

SB

[PaulSacramento]

Religion and culture/civilization have come down through the ages, hand-in-hand.
It's hard to see which one beget the other.
Has there ever been a moral law divorced from religion?
I don't think so.
Even the golden rule had to come from somewhere and the oldest examples are from religion.

[B. W.]

Pros,

I would agree, militant fundamentalist of all stripes and callings I too don’t like. Militant fundamentalist Atheist have killed more and caused more harm than any other militant group (Mao – 70 million in China, Stalin, North Korea, Cuba how many more – only God knows).

Militant fundamentalist Socialist, militant fundamentalist Capitalist too are dangerous too. Militancy can become an extreme position that goes beyond reason. Therefore, how can we really know if militancy is wrong or right without some direction?

After all, our own perceptions are off kilter so very often. How can we really know if all brands of militant fundamentalism are wrong? In some cases, it may become necessary when confronting the most evil.

Comments?
-
-
-

[Proinsias]

B.W:
I'm not a big fan of the numbers game. Who killed who in who's name etc....Your baddie killed more people than my baddie. It doesn't seem like much of surprise that atheist communist regimes attempts at power killed far more people as they attempted to size power for the first time when there were far more people in the world and far more efficient ways of killing them than when Christianity was looking for power and control. If you're playing the numbers game perhaps you should adopt the animist beliefs of the Semai as they have killed far less than have been killed in the name of the Christian God.

How can we really know if there is right and wrong at all about anything? I don't think we can. I'm still having trouble with how the idea of salvation not being based on deeds goes hand in hand with right and wrong deeds carrying much meaning. I was beginning to suspect the book, an old university text, I picked up recently "The Object of Morality" might have had some points I fundamentally disagreed with but as I got to the last chapter or two on religion and then the rationality of morality I find myself largely in agreement with the text. It explains to some extent why I go nowhere in moral discussion here, the view is that religious morality is not just another angle on the subject but that a religious viewpoint is looking at an entirely different picture. And that morality can be rationally disregarded. Not so much religion in the pretty wide sense that I usually refer to it, but religion in the sense of a moral, creative being who has some very definite opinions on human behaviour and what will happen to them when they die. He also seems comfortable with the idea of rationally disregarding morally in general.

I don't have much of a problem with socialist, conservative, atheist, religious etc leanings. I can't claim that militant fundamentalism is really wrong in any clothing, I'm just saying it scares me. That some megalomanic was trying to gain power by killing all those that stood in his way is not for me a reason to throw out some of the political or religious ideas he held to. Fundamentalist atheists often claim religion is the root of all evil and those on the other side point back at them as being the root of all evil, what goes around comes around.

Sam:
I find the witchcraft thing fascinating. I've just made it to part three of the Malleus Malficarum - The Witch Hammer - it's been my toilet book for coming on a year and a year of anthropology at university some time ago provided me with enough info to have a book list that will keep me going for life. The logic and rigour applied in the Malleus is astounding. Makes me wonder that my most basic logical deductions and means of holding to them will lead someone to leaping off the loo in a few hundred years to show their better half how deluded people were in the olden days. It seems we've gone from taking witches so seriously we burn them to laughing at them, one extreme to the other with never any consideration that they may not be either evil, mad, idiots or all three.

[B. W.]

Hi Pros,

Let me take the liberty of rephrasing some verses in the Book of Romans but replacing the word Law with Morality and sin defined as Moral twisting. In doing so, I hope you see what the authors was trying to reveal as it actually helps answer your last post in a unique manner as well as brings out my own point in beginning this thread. So for starters. let's read...

Romans 2:14-15, …for when people, who do not have Morality based on the Law of God, by nature do the things according to the Morality of God’s Law, these, although not having this Morality, (make) a Morality unto themselves, 15 who show the work of an Ethical Morality written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them…

The above verses demonstrates that human beings do indeed create their own morality and by doing so, break their own moral codes. It is the breaking of these moral codes that exposes something about out human nature: we twist morality to suite our own ends, even ethical moral standards from God – people twist for their own ends.

The next verses cited below reveal this fact and in doing so show forth the reason for morality – to expose what Christians and God define as a sin nature – the nature that twists and warps Morality to justify any action. People do that even with God’s own Law (The Ten Commandments and OT Law). Ethical Morality exposes sin in our hearts and lives. Moral standards will judge us before God, We break even our own morals and will thus break God’s as well too due to how we morally twist things to justify ourselves. That is why we need a savior as we cannot save ourselves.

Please read and see what you shall see…

Romans 7:5-19 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by Morality were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from Morality, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

7 What shall we say then? Is Ethical Morality sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through Ethical Morality. For I would not have known covetousness unless Ethical Morality had said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."

8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from Morality sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without an Ethical Morality, but when the commandment came, sin (Morality twisting) revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.

11 For Morality Twisting, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore Ethical Morality is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. 13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But Morality Twisting, that it might appear as Morality Twisting, was producing death in me through what is good, so that Morality Twisting through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.

14 For we know that God based Ethical Morality is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under Morality Twisting.

15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with Ethical Morality that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but the Morality Twisting that dwells in me.

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the Morality Twisting I will not to do, that I practice.

20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but Morality Twisting that dwells in me. 21 I find then a law, that Morality Twisting is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the Ethical Morality form God according to the inward man.

23 But I see another Morality in my physical nature, warring against the Ethical Morality of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the Morality of Twistedness which is in my physical nature…
-
-
-
P.S. How can one determine when Fundamentalism crosses the line into the extreme and we can actually judge it as wrong? Answer: By the morality twisting it does in order to justify one's actions. Likewise, saying there is no real right or wrong is also Morality Twisting forming another form of Fundamentalism maybe say of apathy, or escapism from eternal consequences, or...? Think about it...

[PaulSacramento]

I'm not a big fan of the numbers game. Who killed who in who's name etc....Your baddie killed more people than my baddie. It doesn't seem like much of surprise that atheist communist regimes attempts at power killed far more people as they attempted to size power for the first time when there were far more people in the world and far more efficient ways of killing them than when Christianity was looking for power and control. If you're playing the numbers game perhaps you should adopt the animist beliefs of the Semai as they have killed far less than have been killed in the name of the Christian God.

It's not really a numbers game per say, what it is is evidence that when atheist regimes take power they seem to be willfully predisposed to kill and slaughter their very own people ( and anyone that gets in their way).

[PaulSacramento]

How can we really know if there is right and wrong at all about anything? I don't think we can

Sure we can.
Is it right or wrong to kill babies for our amusement?
Is it right or wrong to rape?
Is it right or wrong to take what does not belong to us?
Is it right to kill and pillage?

[ChristYouKnowItAintEasy]

I would agree, militant fundamentalist of all stripes and callings I too don’t like. Militant fundamentalist Atheist have killed more and caused more harm than any other militant group (Mao – 70 million in China, Stalin, North Korea, Cuba how many more – only God knows).

Except of Stalin who was of jewish descent (no total proof on this yet). And:
“The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was the Work of Jewish Brains, Jewish Dissatisfaction and Jewish Planning, whose goal is to create a New Order in the world.
What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish Brains and Jewish planning, shall also, through the same mental and Physical forces, Become a reality all over the world.”
-American Hebrew, September 8, 1920

“Some call it Marxism — I call it Judaism.”
(The American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).

66 million Christians were killed off in Russia, and the leadership of Russia was Jewish.

[Sam1995]

I would agree, militant fundamentalist of all stripes and callings I too don’t like. Militant fundamentalist Atheist have killed more and caused more harm than any other militant group (Mao – 70 million in China, Stalin, North Korea, Cuba how many more – only God knows).

Except of Stalin who was of jewish descent (no total proof on this yet). And:
“The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was the Work of Jewish Brains, Jewish Dissatisfaction and Jewish Planning, whose goal is to create a New Order in the world.
What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish Brains and Jewish planning, shall also, through the same mental and Physical forces, Become a reality all over the world.”
-American Hebrew, September 8, 1920

“Some call it Marxism — I call it Judaism.”
(The American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).

66 million Christians were killed off in Russia, and the leadership of Russia was Jewish.

But then again even in extreme cases, it is too easy for a man to say that he is a certain religion. I know far too many people who tell me that they are Christians, but in fact the reality of it is that they wouldn't even be able to tell me why they gave their lives to God, or when, or how, or where....

SB

[ChristYouKnowItAintEasy]

But then again even in extreme cases, it is too easy for a man to say that he is a certain religion. I know far too many people who tell me that they are Christians, but in fact the reality of it is that they wouldn't even be able to tell me why they gave their lives to God, or when, or how, or where....

SB

Religion is the path between man and God. It can be the path to man and the devil.

[Sam1995]

But then again even in extreme cases, it is too easy for a man to say that he is a certain religion. I know far too many people who tell me that they are Christians, but in fact the reality of it is that they wouldn't even be able to tell me why they gave their lives to God, or when, or how, or where....

SB

Religion is the path between man and God. It can be the path to man and the devil.

Jesus is the path between man and God, not religion. Jesus is the mediator. Religion can lead someone to the devil because they ca fall into the wrong religion (although this is subjective and is my opinion), but also my opinion is that Jesus leads one to God, not to anything else.

Sam:
I find the witchcraft thing fascinating. I've just made it to part three of the Malleus Malficarum - The Witch Hammer - it's been my toilet book for coming on a year and a year of anthropology at university some time ago provided me with enough info to have a book list that will keep me going for life. The logic and rigour applied in the Malleus is astounding. Makes me wonder that my most basic logical deductions and means of holding to them will lead someone to leaping off the loo in a few hundred years to show their better half how deluded people were in the olden days. It seems we've gone from taking witches so seriously we burn them to laughing at them, one extreme to the other with never any consideration that they may not be either evil, mad, idiots or all three.

Must give that book a read, it sounds quite interesting! It's funny how morality changes within society, actually funny looking back through history to see the way people worked in different areas of the world!

SB