HOW IS AN ATHEIST CONSCIENCE FORMED?

[Carl]

What If

I’m not an atheist, but I would assume they would not determine what is evil because evil is of the devil and atheists don’t believe in the devil,

Do you think that atheists do not believe in evil? Do they also not believe in good because we say good is of God? Then what is left for them to believe in?

*but to know what is right or wrong is an important question and I would think that it would have a lot to do with survival of the fittest. The strongest, smartest, most fertile would enforce what they determine to be their rule of law. *

*strongest, smartest, most fertile *?

What happened to most compassionate?

 

[Carl]

WhatIf

but it seems to me that in the presence of God, man still could not agree upon what is evil?

From the fact that in certain cases people do not agree on what is evil, it does not follow that they do not agree on many things that *are * evil. The important thing is not so much whether they agree with each other as whether they agree with God. This importance is never fathomed by the atheist. When virtually all around him agree on doing evil, he cannot brandish *the goodness of God * as a weapon against those who surround him.

All is lost.

 

[Benadam]

I think that would be a good question to ask an atheist

What is evil?

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

I agree with Chesterton. I never cease to be amazed at the zeal of atheists who demand to be free of the commandments, and who at the same time deny the existence of free will.

Well, I am not denying the existence of free will. You see in my world there is room for free will, because I think that something can come from nothing, which is essential for free will.

I say, that free will is impossible or an illusion in the presence an omni-x creator of everything. Since I do not believe in such an entity, there is plenty of room for undeterministic thoughts.

 

[Benadam]

*but to know what is right or wrong is an important question and I would think that it would have a lot to do with survival of the fittest. The strongest, smartest, most fertile would enforce what they determine to be their rule of law.

strongest, smartest, most fertile *?

That’s animal morality based on what feels good is good…etc
Human morality steps out of the emotional sphere and chooses.
the fact that it is chosen requires an authority to reference in order to make that choice because it is a judgement that attempts to determine what IS good not what feels good.
Judgement requires authority
where does an atheist find a source for that authority?

 

[Benadam]

Human morality steps out of the emotional sphere and chooses.
the fact that it is chosen requires an authority to reference in order to make that choice because it is a judgement that attempts to determine what IS good not what feels good.
Judgement requires authority
where does an atheist find a source for that authority?

 

[Benadam]

AnAtheist:

Well, I am not denying the existence of free will. You see in my world there is room for free will, because I think that something can come from nothing, which is essential for free will.

I say, that free will is impossible or an illusion in the presence an omni-x creator of everything. Since I do not believe in such an entity, there is plenty of room for undeterministic thoughts.

if you look at the difference between a freedom that animals enjoy and the feedom particular to humanity you’ll find that for us freedom is in being able to do what we ought to do. That characteristic is in itself proof that humans are of a higher order. We choose. The particular character of human choice is founded on a responsibility that requires us to determine what IS good. This implies that we hold a sort of office or chair with authority to judge. That authority must have a source and there is no way to dissolve it’s source into nothing .

 

[Benadam]

AnAtheist:
I say, that free will is impossible or an illusion in the presence an omni-x creator of everything. Since I do not believe in such an entity, there is plenty of room for undeterministic thoughts.

**I can’t understand how a reality outside of the experienced enviroinment can hinder the personal freedom to choose. **

How does observation negate freedom no matter what the attributes of the observer?

 

[AnAtheist]

Benadam:

AnAtheist:
I say, that free will is impossible or an illusion in the presence an omni-x creator of everything. Since I do not believe in such an entity, there is plenty of room for undeterministic thoughts.

**I can’t understand how a reality outside of the experienced enviroinment can hinder the personal freedom to choose. **

How does observation negate freedom no matter what the attributes of the observer?

We are not talking about an uninvolved observer, but about the creator of the whole stuff.

 

[Benadam]

AnAtheist:

We are not talking about an uninvolved observer, but about the creator of the whole stuff.

why would that matter and how would you know?

 

[AnAtheist]

Benadam:

why would that matter and how would you know?

I have opened a new thread regarding the Free Will issue. Perhaps we should discuss it there, as it has nothing to do with how a conscience is formed.

 

[WhatIf]

Carl:

WhatIf

but it seems to me that in the presence of God, man still could not agree upon what is evil?

From the fact that in certain cases people do not agree on what is evil, it does not follow that they do not agree on many things that *are *evil. The important thing is not so much whether they agree with each other as whether they agree with God. This importance is never fathomed by the atheist. When virtually all around him agree on doing evil, he cannot brandish *the goodness of God *as a weapon against those who surround him.

All is lost.

I used to talk about the goodness of Man when I was an atheist. I was still aware of the difference between Man and wild animals, especially in relation to our emotions. So, when all around me would agree on doing evil, I think I would’ve simply said that it was wrong because it hurt whatever group of people it would hurt, either physically or emotionally.

Your question was how do atheists agree on what is evil. My answer is that they wouldn’t agree, but that Christians also do not agree on what is evil.

As far as having a hypothetical situation where God didn’t exist, then how would atheists decide what is evil or not, I think it would be more like determining what is right or wrong. This determination would be based on our emotions as human beings and I would say that compassion would be involved, but due to our human nature to dominate the weak, I thought that the enforcement of the rules would make a bigger impact and that is why I said stronger, smarter, and most fertile. Most fertile because they would be family and tend to stick together more on enforcement of rules etc. and also may have similar physical attributes. The most fertile would be most healthy and probably dominate in my opinion.

Do atheists believe in evil? I didn’t except I may have used the term just as other around me may have, but it wouldn’t have meant evil being contrary to God’s will. It wouldn’t have meant falling into sin and doing what the devil wants us to do. I didn’t believe in that stuff. I used the terms right and wrong, way more than good and evil, although, I did always believe in the goodness of mankind because we don’t behave as wild animals. I recognized the ability of humans to love and care for one another. I just never gave God credit for this. Maybe an atheist can comment on this. Do atheist believe there is actually evil in the world and how would evil be defined? I think we know wrong because we know what hurts people in either an emotional, psychological, or physical way. Back to the Golden Rule in my opinion of do unto others.

 

[buffalo]

WhatIf:

Your question was how do atheists agree on what is evil. My answer is that they wouldn’t agree, but that Christians also do not agree on what is evil.

Individual Christians may disagree what is evil, but the Catholic Church understands what is evil quite well.

 

[AnAtheist]

WhatIf:

As far as having a hypothetical situation where God didn’t exist, then how would atheists decide what is evil or not, I think it would be more like determining what is right or wrong. …]
Do atheists believe in evil? I didn’t except I may have used the term just as other around me may have, but it wouldn’t have meant evil being contrary to God’s will. It wouldn’t have meant falling into sin and doing what the devil wants us to do. I didn’t believe in that stuff. I used the terms right and wrong, way more than good and evil, although, I did always believe in the goodness of mankind because we don’t behave as wild animals. I recognized the ability of humans to love and care for one another. I just never gave God credit for this. Maybe an atheist can comment on this. Do atheist believe there is actually evil in the world and how would evil be defined?

I couldn’t have decribed it better. Except “evil” may be synonymous to “wrong”, it has no further meaning to me. There is no personalised evil for me, and no God implies there is nothing against his will. Same goes for “sin”. It is a somewhat meaningless term to me.

 

[WhatIf]

buffalo:

Individual Christians may disagree what is evil, but the Catholic Church understands what is evil quite well.

I agree 100%. The Church is consistent and unwavering and very logical. It seems to me that atheists should seek the Catholic Church when they reach the point that they believe in God. It is logical in its Teachings. The people in it will do wrong because we are humans, but The Church itself is a very good guide for everyone.

 

[Lisa_N]

AnAtheist:

I couldn’t have decribed it better. Except “evil” may be synonymous to “wrong”, it has no further meaning to me. .

Then how do you determine if something is wrong? What is the context? Wrong in comparison to what and who decided? Your position creates moral relativism as the God you worship.

AnAtheist:

There is no personalised evil for me, and no God implies there is nothing against his will. Same goes for “sin”. It is a somewhat meaningless term to me.

So you think it’s fine to do “wrong?” (your term).

BTW you never responded to my previous post where I said your statement was internally inconsistent. Did you notice the reply?

Lisa N

 

[Carl]

WhatIf

This determination would be based on our emotions as human beings and I would say that compassion would be involved, but due to our human nature to dominate the weak, I thought that the enforcement of the rules would make a bigger impact and that is why I said stronger, smarter, and most fertile.

O.K. I understand your reasoning. The reason I think we have to add “compassionate” to the list is that none of the other three traits (stronger, smarter, most fertile) touch on the nature of conscience. I am reminded of the Nazi mentality in the early 1930’s. They thought they were stronger and smarter than everybody else. The government even induced women to be more fertile because the Third Reich was expected to rule for a thousand years. But you never heard the Nazis talk about compassion, unless it was when they talked about killing people to put them out of their misery (the real reason being that their sad victims of euthanasia were a drag on the economy and the labor force). We know how little compassion the Nazis had. We also know their rule was for 12 years, not 1,000.

But how does a society generate compassion without the command of God to love one another? And what religion, other than the one founded by Christ, asserts this virtue as its central teaching?

You will certainly not find compassion as the central doctrine of Darwin, or Nietzsche, or Sartre, or Freud, or most other famous atheists/agnostics. This doesn’t mean there aren’t atheists who are very compassionate. But, as discussed earlier in this thread, how much of that spirit of compassion is the residue of a once dominantly Christian culture or personal family history?

 

[AnAtheist]

Lisa N:

Your position creates moral relativism…

correct

…as the God you worship.

nonsense
I do not worship anything.

So you think it’s fine to do “wrong?” (your term).

No. It is the definition of “wrong”, that it is not fine to do it.

BTW you never responded to my previous post where I said your statement was internally inconsistent.

That God KNOWS what you will choose does not mean he CONTROLLED that choice. That is the whole essence of free will. God may know that you will choose B but in fact that is the point, you have free will to make the choice. You could have used your free will to choose A but didn’t. God may know in advance what you will do, but God isn’t a “Master Puppeteer” directing your every move.

Sorry, yes, I overlooked that.
My point is, that there is absolutely no difference between a god controlling everything and a god creating everything, exactly knowing what the outcome will be (or is, if he transcends time).

 

[Lisa_N]

AnAtheist:

nonsense
I do not worship anything.

So everything is relative? See below, you claim there is a “wrong” so how do you decide?

AnAtheist:

No. It is the definition of “wrong”, that it is not fine to do it.

Says who? If you have no final authority every thing is relative, then any behavior or action is equally appropriate or acceptable.
It sounds contradictory with respect to your statement above.

AnAtheist:

Sorry, yes, I overlooked that.
My point is, that there is absolutely no difference between a god controlling everything and a god creating everything, exactly knowing what the outcome will be (or is, if he transcends time).

Atheist could you please expand because I think you are completely wrong. I do not think God controls our every move. I think He could if that were His intent but most theologians seem to believe that God did not want to be the Master Puppeteer for his creation. IOW we have free will and we choose the blessing or the curse.

This is not the same as God knowing what we will choose but not interfering. So God may know that I choose to speed in a school zone but He doesn’t stop me.

Also I think that God knowing in the sense that we know, puts God into a box. His concept of time may not be the same as our concept of time which for us is linear. God may live in the past, present and future all at the same time. IOW I don’t think we can put God into a corral of human understanding.

Lisa N

 

[AnAtheist]

Lisa N:

If you have no final authority every thing is relative, then any behavior or action is equally appropriate or acceptable.
It sounds contractictory with respect to your statement above.

Morals are defined within a society, so what is right or wrong depends strongly on the cultural environment. I agree with the catholic position of a natural law, i.e. some build-in human codex, of course I do not recognise your god as its source.

Atheist could you please expand because I think you are completely wrong. I do not think God controls our every move. …]
This is not the same as God knowing what we will choose but not interfering.

This is where we disagree (philosophically). If I create a mouse with a desire for eating cheese, then I create a tasty cheese and tell the mouse not to eat it for no good reason, yet I know that it will disobey that command and do nothing about it. Who gets the blame? Me, the mouse, the cheese? Keep in mind that in the process of creating I already knew that my creation will fail on my own standards, because I created it that way.

IOW I don’t think we can put God into a corral of human understanding.

Wow, yet you claim to know some particular attributes of your god.