B
Brad
Guest
No problem at all. I say the “others” are incorrect. Who do you agree with?
- Status
B
Brad
Guest
So still we have no answer. The atheist has no source for his/her claim to morals and therefore can make no claim to being moral.
R
Richardols
Guest
That statement borders on the idiotic. There are countless atheists who are far more moral than many of their twice-a-week or more church-going believing neighbors, and they can state flatly that they are moral and live moral lives.
M
mike182d
Guest
Were we talking about athiests individually or atheism as a belief system?
No one is claiming that a person must ascribe to a particular religion in order to be a “good” person. If it is true that all men are created by God and created with the purpose of serving him, all men will in one way or another do this.
So, the question is: when an athiest *does *act charitable, is it because he’s an athiest or his soul, loved by God, is stirring inside him despite his best efforts to deny that its there?
R
Richardols
Guest
The non-believer could very well say that the moral nature of man is due to the advancement of his reasoning power and of a just public opinion developed through the effects of habit, example, instruction, and reflection.
Having a God as a source of one’s morals is good, but the above could explain the development of morality in a non-theistic manner. Either, I think, can produce a moral person.
Having a God as a source of one’s morals is good, but the above could explain the development of morality in a non-theistic manner. Either, I think, can produce a moral person.
B
Brad
Guest
Please quote the entire sentence rather than being selective to advance your position.
I addressed your argument in post #79. Start there and work your way back here.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Why should this be any more fatal an objection to them than it is to Christians ? 
We might not have motives which are bad in that way (though I doubt it) - but if we do not, then our motives will be impure in some other way. (This is all predicated on the assumption that atheists are incapable of real goodness - an assumption I do not believe.) The only person Whose motives were perfectly pure, was Christ Himself - atheists are no worse than we are: they are simply sick in a different way. Christians differ from atheists, not in not being needy beggars, but in knowing that they are needy, and that their need can be satisfied, and by Whom. We are not better than they - but better off than they
What I’m talking about, is the sort of charity (so-called)which makes its own charitable activity a badge of honour, which it then proceeds, with some fanfare, to award to itself. If I use any good I may have done as a weapon to belabour others, I debase that good, forget that God is alone Good, and abuse God’s grace as a weapon with which to belabour others. 
Any good the CC is able to do, is done by God’s grace - so we cannot boast of it: it is not ours to boast of - it is Christ’s And His kindness is not a means of making others feel small, or of nursing our own egos
I’m not “putting down” charity in general, nor the SVP in particular - my complaint is against the boasting which triumphs in its own good works and has no eyes for any deeds but its own; so, thinks that God can do good through no one else, and will not. ##
B
buffalo
Guest
Not so. An atheist in a vacuum has no guidance at all. If an atheist has morals they have been gleened from society, and thus untimately from God.
An atheist in a vacuum has no refence point.
R
Richardols
Guest
Ethicist James Rachels examined the nature of social instincts and envisioned a three-step process of morality, based on reciprocal behavior:
This non-diety based morality could certainly explain why non-believers can be moral without any reference to God, and develop an entire system of ethics that have no reference to theology.
- Kin altruism, showing special regard for one’s kin
- Group altruism, extending altruism to the larger group of which one is a member
- Widespread altruism where each and every member of the human race is held worthy of regard.
This non-diety based morality could certainly explain why non-believers can be moral without any reference to God, and develop an entire system of ethics that have no reference to theology.
M
mike182d
Guest
That’s true, they could say that. They could also say that they have a large, invisible, pink bunny rabbit named Jerry as a friend. The words of men aren’t true merely because they’re spoken.
Such claims are baseless and illogical on their part.
B
Brad
Guest
To do this, they would not be rationale. They would be rationalizing. Do you know of 2 atheists that have exactly the same set of moral values? How about 3,4, or 10? Who is right? And whose habit, example, and instruciton did they follow?
Let’s take the comparative statements you suggest such as “I, as an atheist am a moral person, unlike my Christian neighbor, who is rude and unchariablel”.
They cannot make these comparative statements. They say they are more moral than their neighbors. Based on what? The Judeo-Christian moral system or their own moral system? If it is the Judeo-Christian moral system, then they cannot deny the Jewish or Christian faiths. If it is their own moral system then they cannot compare that to anyone else’s equally viable moral system.
It is not that an individual atheist cannot be more moral than an individual Christian. It is that the benchmark being used would have to be the same. This puts the moral atheist in an illogical position. He would either claim to be more moral on his value system alone (in which case he is claiming moral superiority over everone else in the world, which automatically refutes his claim of morality) OR he would claim to be more moral based on the Christian set of values, thus legitimizing the Christian moral system (in which case he would be saying the Christian moral system is true and he is not an atheist).
R
Richardols
Guest
Your opinion, fine. I submitted my opinion. Obviously, we don’t agree, and based on public debates such as “Is the basis of morality natural or supernatural?” a lot of other people hold to one position or the other.
M
mike182d
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
So, there are some atheists that are better people than some Christians, but its not because of their atheism.
Ah! I see what you are saying now, and I do agree. I was not trying to claim that Christians are better people than atheists, but rather atheism itself, as a belief system, does not lend itself to such charity. When an atheists does act as such, it is because of God stirring within him, not any logical ethic derived from his belief system - as it really the case with *all *men; our works are products of the grace of God.We are not better than they - but better off than they
I’m not “putting down” charity in general, nor the SVP in particular - my complaint is against the boasting which triumphs in its own good works and has no eyes for any deeds but its own; so, thinks that God can do good through no one else, and will not. ##
So, there are some atheists that are better people than some Christians, but its not because of their atheism.
R
Richardols
Guest
Not at all. Rachels’ proposal offered a basis and was logical, even if you don’t agree with it.
B
Brad
Guest
A couple of points.
- Christianity has a unique version of the Golden Rule that is not present in ANY other belief system. It is poractive and it regards putting others before yourself.
- You could make a much stronger case that non-believers are moral because they are surrounded by other people that believe in moral absolutes derived from a superior being AND that strong and powerful non-believers can easily reject the morality of those arround them and form their own version of a superior being and moral system because the reference to God is removed from their minds. You do not have to look far to see examples today or in the last century of such non-believers.
B
Brad
Guest
It is both. The issue is not that some reject the natural. It is that some reject the supernatural.
R
Richardols
Guest
Why not?: “I am an atheist and am a moral person and you are a believer and are are a moral person. I derive my morality on the basis of the natural, you derive yours on the basis of the supernatural.”
I suspect that the ethics and morality of both would be quite close.
B
Brad
Guest
Rachel’s proposal (if based on no God) falls apart on point #1. If there is no basis for showing special regard for one’s kin then people will freely choose to ignore this rule and they do all the time.
B
Brad
Guest
That would not be morality. That would be values. One atheist may value what naturally appears to work best for society. Another may value something completely different. Is there an agreed upon set of values or morals for atheists? If so, what is their incentive to follow this system when it doesn’t appear to be in their personal best interests?
M
mike182d
Guest
His argument fails in the assumptions he makes about human nature without qualification. It is not enough to recognize that human beings have certain traits and then infer that these traits exists of their own accord. What *is *instinct? Why am I *obligated *to obey it? Where does it come from? If there is no God, is not instinct a man-made convetion? Clear example: Every man has a natural urge to lust after women other than his wife - we as Christian fight against this. Does it follow that this urge, too, should be the foundation of a societal norm? You can say that in the interest of preserving the species now, that monogomy is necessary, but if the human race faced extinction, would that then warrant relations with multiple partners? If so, does that not render Theology of the Body obsolete?
If you assume that human beings are the way they are simply because they are the way they are, and then build an ethic around it, that is terribly faulty logic.
- Status