Do the Atheists have it right: Just Be Good for Goodness' Sake?

[Dameedna]

That being said. The thread’s issue could benefit from a different point of view, that is – for the want of better words – the negative side. What happens when absolute truth is absent?

I think you are looking at it. This world and our society is a result of there not being an “absolute truth”. We need to look no further than where we are.

It is not my intention to place blame for society’s ills on people or institutions because I view absolute truth as being a commonality of all people. If we are going to discuss “goodness” we need to figure out if and what is the ultimate common truth.

Blessings,
grannymh

Let me say something about this concept of absolute truth. I think there is, an absolute truth. I think at the end of the day, there is a complete picture to be made and fundamental truth upon which our existance depends.

Having said that, the “truth” may not be what people want to hear. The truth, may be that the universe has alway’s existed in some form, and we are purely the result of natural forces and there is nothing “spiritual” about it.

The problem is not with the “concept” of an absolute truth. The problem, is that we don’t know what it is. People only “believe” they know and rather than humbly admit this, they fight to the death to support the belief they feel is most correct(and more often than not, the one that most suits themselves)

For humans, I don’t think there needs to be a common truth for all people. What I mean by that, is that people are going through different stages of their lives and quite literally NEED different things from stage to stage.

I think we actually need to start from a place of doubt. That’s the only common element I can see for humanity. We simply do not know. None of us. If we can accept that, perhaps we’d stop hurting each other in the name of ideologies.

 

[Dameedna]

Not according to scripture…scientists are secular…

Whose scripture?

The Jew’s?
The FDLS?
The Muslims?
The cargo Cults?
The pastologists?

Can people really not see, that there is a world of belief out there, and no matter how “correct” one thinks their religion is, there are other’s who feel the same way about theirs and disagree?

 

[grannymh]

Hi granny,

 

[FrancesMarx]

The majority at certain times thought the way black slaves were treated in America was ok. The way Jews were killed in Germany were fine. And that Aparthied in South Africa was just the way it was done. That Native Americans land could be stolen because Europeans were entitled to it. That the atomic bomb was useful. Et cetera…the reason we need God is because of the majority.

Did God abolish slavery?

 

[Realcatholicgk]

If there is a God, who decides what God wants?

The Jew’s?
The muslims?
The christians?
The FDLS?
The Cargo Cults?
The scientists?

There are a lot of people who believe in God, and they all disagree with one another about what God wants.

Invoking a 'God" to justify a particular moral code, is rather pointless considering what kinds of things are done in the name of God.

**
Hi Dameedna,

Finally an Easy One: JESUS! **

 

[TMC]

FIrst we would have to get by the question - Why didn’t the first atheist kill the second?

Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. But seeing as the third theist killed the fourth, I’m not sure theism has proved much of a bulwark against killing.

 

[FrancesMarx]

but is written on our heart … if not God?

Why is it not written on every one’s heart?

 

[buffalo]

You are wrong. It is very rational to be virtuous. I can rationally determine that the best kind of society is one in which people help one another; as a result, I can implement actions to contribute to such a society.

Now it’s true that humans have a drive towards empathy and that this drive, rooted in the emotions, isn’t itself logical. That’s true – but morality is the guiding of our natural empathy by reason.

You’re conveniently ignoring the fact that your god has set up a place of infinite punishment for those who have committed finite crimes…and that one of these crimes is not believing in him.

It is an absolute moral evil to torture anyone forever for any reason whatsoever. Any rational person would conclude that. Anyone who advocates eternal torture is morally reprehensible.

Similarly, it is an absolute moral evil to enslave anyone for any reason whatsoever. I know some apologists claim that (some forms of) slavery condoned by the Bible were more like being an indentured servant or whatnot – it’s irrelevant. Any rational person can conclude that the owning of other human beings is an absolute moral evil. Anyone who advocates any form of slavery for any reason is morally reprehensible.

Your god advocates things that are morally reprehenible.

Edit: I suppose I should make crystal clear that I don’t believe your god (or any other) exists – and it’s a good thing, too, since he’s a monster.

Look at it this way - you have a relationship with someone, they turn your back on you. You still keep turned toward them, but they never again turn back toward you. What kind of a relationship does this become? It is the same with God. He let’s you decide. If you turn your back to Him, then how can you have a relationship and experience Him? It’s totally your call.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, there is an objective standard, and it does come from reason. I outlined it earlier in the thread, post 70. I’ll paste the relevant parts below:

Most atheists appeal to reason as the source of moral judgments. In any given situation, it is possible to look at the spectrum of actions available to us and decide which of those actions are more likely to produce positive results and which are less likely. Remember, since this life is the only one that we are all certain that we will have, it’s in everyone’s best interest to build the best possible society in the here and now.

As social animals, humans have a natural drive to work together (we see similar behavior in many species), and through an application of reason guided by this natural empathy, we can behave in an ethical manner towards one another to build the kind of world we would all like to live in.

Note: I personally define “positive results” as “results that are in accord with the natures of all parties involved and that do not unnecessarily violate the free will of anyone or cause unnecessary harm to any party.”

In other words, moral imperatives emerge from conditions and situations. We don’t “get them” from anywhere – they emerge from our experience and can often be generalized into rules.

Was Hitler right?

 

[buffalo]

Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. But seeing as the third theist killed the fourth, I’m not sure theism has proved much of a bulwark against killing.

God could have designed it to be. He could made us robots. He didn’t. He gave us free will.

 

[MegaTherion]

The most rational thing in the world is to take care of yourself.

I don’t agree – it is not the most rational thing in the world to take care of yourself only. Reason isn’t about selfishness; it allows us to determine what the best possible course of action in a given situation is.

Certainly self-preservation is one of our instincts – but morality is about rationally guiding our instincts (and usually thwarting our instincts). That’s what civilization has been about since its dawn.

We can rationally determine that the best kind of society is one in which people share with one another, do not kill or steal, etc. And from this, we can rationally determine the best course of action to achieve it.

Then you say,

If one accepts this virtue [rational virtue], it is because Christianity has proclaimed it to be a virtue.

No, that is demonstrably false. There have been plenty of societies that existed long before Christianity and Judaism that had systems of morality, laws, and codes. Such morality was a product of the social contract, of people figuring out rationally what was the moral good and agreeing to abide by it.

Now, a lot of times, ancient peoples did not do this perfectly and fell short of the moral imperative generated by the situation and by reason. Witness barbaric (immoral) practices such as stoning people to death, slavery, irrational sexual taboos, and others.

Civilization has been steadily improving and growing more moral, thanks to applied reason.

Speaking of ancient barbaric practices…

How do you know this [that the Judeo-Christian god is morally reprehensible]?

Where shall we start? How about Exodus 21:1-11 for starters, where the law given by this god gives specifics on the owning of other human beings, down to rules for selling one’s own daughter into slavery.

How about 1 Samuel 15:3 in which this god instructs the Israelites to “spare not” anyone from Amalek, specifying that they are to slay men, women, children, and animals.

There are countless other passages.

Anyone who advocates any of these things at any time in history, in any context, for any reason, is morally reprehensible.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

**Hi Realcatholicgk, **

**Hi Granny, **

**Since I’m not in Texas nor in Kansas, can I still ask questions about absolute truth? **

**Of course you can! **

**
Like that mythological fellow holding his lamp while searching everywhere for truth?**

** Well the truth about him was that his name was Diogenes and he was looking for “Honesty” He was a Greek philosopher from cira 400BC, He is said to have lived in a large tub, rather than a house, and to have walked through the streets carrying a lamp in the daytime, claiming to be looking for an honest man. He, as I, believing that virtue was better revealed in action and not theory, his life was a relentless campaign to debunk the social values and institutions of what he saw as a corrupt society.

:compcoff:

God Bless
**

 

[MegaTherion]

Look at it this way - you have a relationship with someone, they turn your back on you. You still keep turned toward them, but they never again turn back toward you. What kind of a relationship does this become? It is the same with God. He let’s you decide. If you turn your back to Him, then how can you have a relationship and experience Him? It’s totally your call.

If someone turned his back on me, I would be angry with him. I would not torture him – and I certainly would never torture him for eternity!

For me to torture someone for turning his back on me would be morally reprehensible, a crime against humanity – for me to torture that person forever…my mind boggles at the thought.

To think that anyone deserves eternal torture for any crime – let alone something like that – is horrendous.

In answer to your other question, Hitler was wrong about just about everything, from his crackpot racism to his brutal acts of genocide. None of it is remotely rational.

Do I think he deserves to be tortured (which is probably where you’re going with the question)? No, I don’t.

Now, certainly, I hate Hitler, and I’d love to tear him apart with my bare hands…but that’s the precise reason we have laws and morality…to tame our impulses and base desires for revenge.

As much as I’d love to cause Hitler pain, it would be wrong of me.

It would be really wrong of me to suggest that he should be tortured forever.

 

[Dameedna]

If someone turned his back on me, I would be angry with him. I would not torture him – and I certainly would never torture him for eternity!

For me to torture someone for turning his back on me would be morally reprehensible, a crime against humanity – for me to torture that person forever…my mind boggles at the thought.

It boggles my mind as well. Humans never chose to exist. Claiming that a God, would choose to make us, choose to give us free will knowing what we would do, and set the conditions upon which we would suffer for an eternity seems undeniably cruel.

Would it not be better to never create us, than create us knowing that even one human would suffer for an eternity?

 

[buffalo]

If someone turned his back on me, I would be angry with him. I would not torture him – and I certainly would never torture him for eternity!

For me to torture someone for turning his back on me would be morally reprehensible, a crime against humanity – for me to torture that person forever…my mind boggles at the thought.

To think that anyone deserves eternal torture for any crime – let alone something like that – is horrendous.

In answer to your other question, Hitler was wrong about just about everything, from his crackpot racism to his brutal acts of genocide. None of it is remotely rational.

Do I think he deserves to be tortured (which is probably where you’re going with the question)? No, I don’t.

Now, certainly, I hate Hitler, and I’d love to tear him apart with my bare hands…but that’s the precise reason we have laws and morality…to tame our impulses and base desires for revenge.

As much as I’d love to cause Hitler pain, it would be wrong of me.

It would be really wrong of me to suggest that he should be tortured forever.

No - I would like you to prove Hitler was wrong without using God who is absolute truth.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks Realcatholicgk for your answer:clapping:

Since I am a honest granny, I have to admit I kept thinking his name was Diomedes which was wrong. Come to think of it, an honest man would be truthful.

**Well the truth about him was that his name was Diogenes and he was looking for “Honesty” He was a Greek philosopher from cira 400BC, He is said to have lived in a large tub, rather than a house, and to have walked through the streets carrying a lamp in the daytime, claiming to be looking for an honest man. He, as I, believing that virtue was better revealed in action and not theory, his life was a relentless campaign to debunk the social values and institutions of what he saw as a corrupt society. **

**:snowing: **

 

[Dameedna]

No - I would like you to prove Hitler was wrong without using God who is absolute truth.

Invoking a god, to declare a concept as truth, does not make the concept necessarily true.

In Islam, Jihaad is considered an acceptable practice(with limitations obviously) and God is considered to be the absolute truth.

The bali bombers were following Jihaad, and therefore following God’s absolute truth. Infidels must be killed. Invoking gods truth, means that the bombers were correct.

I’ll say it again, you cannot invoke a “god” to declare something is good or truthful, anymore than you can claim something is good or truthful without a God.

But we still have to live in a society, so we can use reason to attempt to determine the best rules for our society.

In terms of hitler. Why would we determine his behaviour to be wrong? One idea would be if everyone decided they wanted to control the behaviour of mankind, and kill every human who they didn’t like, then humanity would be at constant war with each other and would eventually destroy itself.

Does that seem the rational course of action?

 

[MegaTherion]

No - I would like you to prove Hitler was wrong without using God who is absolute truth.

Well, there is no rational basis for racism, so racism in all of its forms is wrong.

The murder of another human being is absolutely wrong – we can determine this from reason. Go back to what I said: we can use reason to decide the best course of action in every situation, “best” meaning conducive to the natures of everyone involved without causing unnecessary harm or interfering unnecessarily with another’s free will.

Murdering another causes unnecessary harm. There is no situation in which murder is even close to the best course of action, and it is always harmful.

It is rational to want to live in a world where I am not in danger of being murdered – it is thus rational to desire a society in which no one commits murder.

Genocide is murder on a mass scale – it is absolutely, 100% morally wrong. It’s wrong when a god commands it, and it’s wrong when a man commands it.

Conclusion: I am more moral than Hitler and your god.

 

[buffalo]

Well, there is no rational basis for racism, so racism in all of its forms is wrong.

The murder of another human being is absolutely wrong – we can determine this from reason. Go back to what I said: we can use reason to decide the best course of action in every situation, “best” meaning conducive to the natures of everyone involved without causing unnecessary harm or interfering unnecessarily with another’s free will.

Murdering another causes unnecessary harm. There is no situation in which murder is even close to the best course of action, and it is always harmful.

It is rational to want to live in a world where I am not in danger of being murdered – it is thus rational to desire a society in which no one commits murder.

Genocide is murder on a mass scale – it is absolutely, 100% morally wrong. It’s wrong when a god commands it, and it’s wrong when a man commands it.

Conclusion: I am more moral than Hitler and your god.

The murder of a human being is absolutely wrong? Who says it is rational to create a society which no one commits murder? Why should I care?

You have failed to prove Hitler was wrong.

 

[Dameedna]

You have failed to prove Hitler was wrong.

How have you proven that Hitler was wrong?

How have you proven that the Bali Bombers were wrong?