Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
AquilaChrysaetos

The Atheist Moral Argument

110 posts in this topic

My question here is not a debate for or against the existance of a Moral Law. My question is more focused on why Atheists use morality as a means to refute religion.

According to the Atheist / Materialist doctrine, all that exists is the material world. There is no God, Spirits, or a Spiritual Realm. We all just happened to randomly happen into existance, and therefore all we are are random mixtures of chemicals and electrical signals in the brain.

No matter how morbid the thought, if it were true, then that would mean that there is no such thing as absolute morality. Morality itself would therefore be relative, and therefore would not exist. It would completely depend on the perspective of the individual.

Now, despite the strong evidence sugesting the existance of an absolute Moral Law, my question comes down simply to this:

Why do many Athesists claim Religion to be evil and poison everything when they according to their own doctrine claim that morality itself is relative and therefore doesn't exist?

I don't see how Atheists can use morality to refute Religion since they can not give an absolute definition of Good and Evil. And even if they could, it would simply be their opinion as opposed to other's opinion on the matter. It would have no substance since morality itself would not exist.

I'm not saying that Atheists cannot be moral, I'm saying that this argument against Religion is self-contradictory, and that Atheists in my opinion shouldn't use morality in their argument against religion, but should use scientific / historical facts instead. Then they would have a more valid and reasonable truth claim versus an opinion.

Just stick to the facts people, don't bring morality into Theism / Atheism debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There are many atheists (I'm agnostic if you must label) who don't try and argue against religion. They just don't believe. Which is their right, as it is your right to believe. But sadly there are people on both sides who feel strongly enough to start a war about it. I think the 'All exists in the material world' hypothesis is an absolute crock up. I'm a science man, I believe in aliens and all that but at the same time I love in a haunted house and believe there is some kind of existence after death. But I don't believe in 'god' as people him.

Odin though, I like to think Odin's real. Warrior goddesses coming to get me when my times up then taking me to a hall where I can to drink and eat with my friends and the gods. Sounds like heaven lmfao.

Edited by krypter3
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a couple of things I think you're mistaken about.

Firstly, I don't believe too many atheists believe there is a moral argument against the existence of a god. The reverse is certainly true. Many theologists have used the existence of morality to try to prove that God exists. All one can say is that a materialistic view of morality removes any need for a god to exist. It's not the same as saying that it can be used to prove gods don't exist.

Secondly. Having a materialistic worldview may lead one to reject ideas of absolute morality (an arguable point), but that does not then equate to a belief that morality doesn't exist. It clearly does, only an atheist would favour a natural explanation. I think you make the mistake of equating relative morality with no morality. They're not the same thing.

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a couple of things I think you're mistaken about.

Firstly, I don't believe too many atheists believe there is a moral argument against the existence of a god. The reverse is certainly true. Many theologists have used the existence of morality to try to prove that God exists. All one can say is that a materialistic view of morality removes any need for a god to exist. It's not the same as saying that it can be used to prove gods don't exist.

Secondly. Having a materialistic worldview may lead one to reject ideas of absolute morality (an arguable point), but that does not then equate to a belief that morality doesn't exist. It clearly does, only an atheist would favour a natural explanation. I think you make the mistake of equating relative morality with no morality. They're not the same thing.

I have had someone ask me "If you're atheist and you don't read the bible, how do you know what's right from wrong?" As if we can't just be decent people without religion. Also quite frightening that some people need the fear of religion in order to behave...

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what has been missed here is that you need God to be good in the afterlife. A 1/3 of the angels fell and are now wicked demons in the afterlife. Evil spirits are demons (fallen angels) and humans (fallen) without God and they are all in hell. It's hell to be without God. The angelic and human condition is that we are evil and wicked without our creator in the afterlife. So, you people that think about moral conditions in this life time, need to think about all of eternity in the afterlife as an immortal.because being an evil spirit in hell is our demise without God! An atheist or agnostic lies about their creator. How could you be good when you are lying about the one that created you? Jesus said that the devil was a liar and a murderer right from the very beginning. Don't be a fool and think that you are not the devil without God because in the end you will be evil for all of eternity shackled to those of power in the evil kingdom. Don't you see what God is doing here - trying to keep you from being evil in the afterlife as well as in this world. And you can thank Jesus that you don't have to be the devil in the afterlife!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also quite frightening that some people need the fear of religion in order to behave...

Indeed it is. But it's arguable that this fact alone is one of religion's most useful features.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suppose the best way to 'refute' religion would be to use religion against itself ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had someone ask me "If you're atheist and you don't read the bible, how do you know what's right from wrong?" As if we can't just be decent people without religion. Also quite frightening that some people need the fear of religion in order to behave...

I tend to think upon the lines of I wouldn't like that done to me so perhaps its best not doing it to someone else....not always successful, but its the thought that counts

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question here is not a debate for or against the existance of a Moral Law. My question is more focused on why Atheists use morality as a means to refute religion.

>> snip

Now, despite the strong evidence sugesting the existance of an absolute Moral Law, my question comes down simply to this:

Despite your leading disclaimer, you made a claim for the existence of absolute morality. So I feel obliged to ask what strong evidence do you have?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what has been missed here is that you need God to be good in the afterlife. A 1/3 of the angels fell and are now wicked demons in the afterlife. Evil spirits are demons (fallen angels) and humans (fallen) without God and they are all in hell. It's hell to be without God. The angelic and human condition is that we are evil and wicked without our creator in the afterlife. So, you people that think about moral conditions in this life time, need to think about all of eternity in the afterlife as an immortal.because being an evil spirit in hell is our demise without God! An atheist or agnostic lies about their creator. How could you be good when you are lying about the one that created you? Jesus said that the devil was a liar and a murderer right from the very beginning. Don't be a fool and think that you are not the devil without God because in the end you will be evil for all of eternity shackled to those of power in the evil kingdom. Don't you see what God is doing here - trying to keep you from being evil in the afterlife as well as in this world. And you can thank Jesus that you don't have to be the devil in the afterlife!

How loving of you.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that Atheists cannot be moral, I'm saying that this argument against Religion is self-contradictory, and that Atheists in my opinion shouldn't use morality in their argument against religion, but should use scientific / historical facts instead. Then they would have a more valid and reasonable truth claim versus an opinion.

Just stick to the facts people, don't bring morality into Theism / Atheism debates.

Religion is spiritual above all. This may be scientific, but its science is not controlled by man. Using scientific or historic elements in a debate will not open a man's heart to see or understand God if he is an Athiest. Only the spirit can do that. I believe what these discussions can do is attempt to help people to see why other people think and feel and believe and have become sure of certain things.

I also agree athiest can be highly moral. An individual from any sect can range naturally or conditionally, greatly in morality, but I think we can find those who found "religion" and were adament about using its practices for spiritual growth successfully, should have found an increase of morality. This is my opinion. That is also not to say an athiest could not have found a program or self internalization that does not promote morality. But the peace of God does aid greatly in bringing about a change of heart in many areas for a believer. Anyway, my main point is that this is spiritual in nature and governed by god in direct communication to an individuals heart. No amount of debate will make it clear for anyone. It truly is about what a person believes and how this belief became available for him.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to think upon the lines of I wouldn't like that done to me so perhaps its best not doing it to someone else....not always successful, but its the thought that counts

I think that if there is an absolute morality, this is it. All our moral principles derive from this one concept.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if there is an absolute morality, this is it. All our moral principles derive from this one concept.

An old friend said it to me once, a staunch atheist btw, it made so much sense that I never forgot it

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed it is. But it's arguable that this fact alone is one of religion's most useful features.

And lots of people need the fear of consequence of civil laws and of social disapproval to make them behave. Perhaps only few people possess a logically derived, personal philosophical /ethical position on everything, and use logic and discipline to stick to it, always; whether under observation and part of a society, or alone on a desert island.

My personal ethics and moralities were worked out from wide reading, deep thinking, and studies of philosophy and logic, when I was an atheist. I had to change only a few minor things as a theist who lives with god in side me and around me. For example I gave up eating, drinking and taking anything which could harm or reduce the potentiality of my body or mind.

In part that was because most religious principles evolved as social principles to benefit society. As society changes the reeligious principles must change jus tas civil laws mus tchange to reflect the new realities of an evolved society, but some truths, such as what constitutes a good diet and healthy lifestyle, or how to treat people, remain the same.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if there is an absolute morality, this is it. All our moral principles derive from this one concept.

Mnnn! But what if, to take an example, you do not enjoy being caned on the bottom, but someone else does. Should you follow your desire not to be caned (or to cane someone and inflict pain), or the other person's desire to be caned, because for them, pain is pleasure?. (Watching a movie on the life of carl jung and his mistress, who apparently had such a prediliction for sexual gratification, prompted me to use this example.) She used to be beaten by her father and found it arousing. THe psychologicla pressure of dealing with such an "unnatural" gratification came out in behaviours which led her parents to jung for treatment He eventually discovered the cause and released her from her self loathing and she became a psycho therapits therslef. She still, however, sought sexual gratification from being "spanked," and jung involved himslef in this as part of a long time sexual relationship with her.

Is it healthier to "cure" or alter such a desire as unhealthy, or to accept its nature/causations and submit to it? (One of the disagreements between jung and freud lay in the application of psychotherapy beyond understanding the causes of people's behaviours)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Mnnn! But what if, to take an example, you do not enjoy being caned on the bottom, but someone else does. Should you follow your desire not to be caned (or to cane someone and inflict pain), or the other person's desire to be caned, because for them, pain is pleasure?. (Watching a movie on the life of carl jung and his mistress, who apparently had such a prediliction for sexual gratification, prompted me to use this example.) She used to be beaten by her father and found it arousing. THe psychologicla pressure of dealing with such an "unnatural" gratification came out in behaviours which led her parents to jung for treatment He eventually discovered the cause and released her from her self loathing and she became a psycho therapits therslef. She still, however, sought sexual gratification from being "spanked," and jung involved himslef in this as part of a long time sexual relationship with her.

Is it healthier to "cure" or alter such a desire as unhealthy, or to accept its nature/causations and submit to it? (One of the disagreements between jung and freud lay in the application of psychotherapy beyond understanding the causes of people's behaviours)

Every rule has exceptions. It's what makes the human moral landscape so complex and fascinating. I think the concept of "the golden rule" is the most basic, and easiest to understand, of moral principles (it's one of the ways we try to teach our children).

In your example, it depends how you frame who's doing what and to whom. Is it immoral to inflict pain even if the recipient wants it? Is it immoral to deprive someone of the right to behave in this way if it harms no one else, even if it might be viewed as maladaptive.

As another example, I don't particularly liked being picked up and dumped in a swimming pool. My kids, on the other hand, love it. To use the moral principle of the 'golden rule' I might be seen as doing something I wouldn't like done to me. Or I could be seen as facilitating the enjoyment of others - something that I appreciate when done for me.

Edited by Arbenol68

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How loving of you.

Rare for me to agree with you but you've the right of it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rare for me to agree with you but you've the right of it here.

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, but sometimes you just have to tell it like it is and not beat around the bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How loving of you.

He actually believes that 1/3 of heavenly denizens actually revolted against the God of Universe. That alone deserves a South Park treatment.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He actually believes that 1/3 of heavenly denizens actually revolted against the God of Universe. That alone deserves a South Park treatment.

It is actually kind of ironic, Christianity accounts for exactly 1/3 of the human population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is actually kind of ironic, Christianity accounts for exactly 1/3 of the human population.

Look man. If a person can believe Book of Mormon and the scientology creation myth, he/she can believe anything. That's what terrifies me about human nature.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed it is. But it's arguable that this fact alone is one of religion's most useful features.

Fearing the world is good enough to motivate you to be moral. Or, since we are social creatures we can have innate morality to a certain degree, religious or not.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do many Athesists claim Religion to be evil and poison everything when they according to their own doctrine claim that morality itself is relative and therefore doesn't exist?

I don't see how Atheists can use morality to refute Religion since they can not give an absolute definition of Good and Evil. And even if they could, it would simply be their opinion as opposed to other's opinion on the matter. It would have no substance since morality itself would not exist.

I don't think morality can be used to 'refute' religion, and as Arbenol already noted you are mistaken that relative morality means no morality. I do think there are a few arguments to be made against religions concerning morality depending on which tenets are considered to be true. I think it's valid to point out that if one believes that God is all-good and all-loving and simultaneously believes that the unsaved are doomed to eternal torment, there appears to be a contradiction there concerning the supposed 'morality' or qualities God is supposed to have. I think God ordering genocide is also problematic for obvious reasons. Agreed, things like this do not refute religion, which is to be expected since religion is a lot more than just claims concerning morality, but I don't think they help the theists' case depending on what they believe.

I'm not saying that Atheists cannot be moral, I'm saying that this argument against Religion is self-contradictory, and that Atheists in my opinion shouldn't use morality in their argument against religion, but should use scientific / historical facts instead. Then they would have a more valid and reasonable truth claim versus an opinion.

Just stick to the facts people, don't bring morality into Theism / Atheism debates.

Keep in mind that if both sides were to truly just stick to facts (as opposed to beliefs), especially scientific ones, then the Theist presentation of their case would be a very short one.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

He actually believes that 1/3 of heavenly denizens actually revolted against the God of Universe. That alone deserves a South Park treatment.

I've seen an angel with wings and two demons with one horn and four nubs on their heads. I read your personal story Ron. It would be wise of you to return. I've seen many spirits without God in the afterlife. They truly are shackled to the evil one. They are lost souls. Their worm (evil) shall not die. They are masters at the art of deception. They lose their memories, family and friends. Being the devils that they are, they would had been better off had they not been born. They appear to thirst for all that only a most loving creator can give them. Edited by notforgotten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen an angel with wings and two demons with one horn and four nubs on their heads. I read your personal story Ron. It would be wise of you to return. I've seen many spirits without God in the afterlife. They truly are shackled to the evil one. They are lost souls. Their worm (evil) shall not die. They are masters at the art of deception. They lose their memories, family and friends. Being the devils that they are, they would had been better off had they not been born. They appear to thirst for all that only a most loving creator can give them.

:cry::unsure2::no:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.