- Cults/Religions
- Christianity
- Apologetics
Atheistic Morality is a Contradiction
Atheists have absolutely no basis for morality. The moral value in the atheist's dream world can only be determined by the same thing that governs his choice of pizza toppings or ice cream flavors--personal preference, and nothing more.
On this page:
Lack of an Objective Standard: The main problem
Ultimately, atheism is mutually exlcusive with any sort of morality because it rejects the very basis of an moral belief: an objective standard. The question that needs to be asked is, "Why is X wrong?" Or "Why is it right that I should do X?" The atheist, no matter how much he tries to put it off, comes back to the same problem: He can never actually answer the question.
Atheists may answer, "It hurts someone, so you shouldn't do it." But the question is still stands, "Why is it wrong to hurt someone?" They're not answering the "Why" question, only giving you another moral statement ("Hurting someone is wrong").
Objections
Atheists are moral people
Yes, there may very well be "moral atheists". Most atheists I know (all of them, actually) don't go around eating babies. I'm not saying that there cannot be a "moral atheist", only that his adhering to any system of morality is an absolute contradiction to his own beliefs.
Morality is based on evolution
Atheists (like Dawkins) often claim that, "We should do whatever is best for the evolution of our species." Or some other such nonsense. There are two problems with basing morality on evolution:
Misses the point: This still doesn't answer why it's right or wrong to do something. What gives the evolution of our species any value? What makes it right that our species should evolve? In other words, the atheist, as stated above, is simply giving another moral statement ("It is right because it helps the evolutionary process") rather than telling us why it is right.
Assumes a direction: It assumes that evolution has a direction. Really, "evolution" is just a term used to describe the mythical events that have led up to the state of living things today. Evolution has no direction, it simply happens. You cannot serve to further something that has no direction, no purpose.
Also, what if a man, as the product of evolution, kills and rapes people as the result of his evolutionary development? Since evolution created a man that rapes and murders, couldn't we argue that evolution makes it right for him to do so?
We don't need fear of hell to make us moral
This objection is just plain stupid.
- Christianity teaches grace, which means rewards and damnation are both independent of works. In other words, morality is not the result of fear.
- Not all theistic religions have a hell doctrine, but they still have a basis of morality
- The problem is not with motivation for being moral, but whether there is even a basis to judge a person morally
We don't need God to tell us murder is wrong
Generally, this is stated as, "Christians are stupid if they need a god to tell them not to murder someone." Like the other arguments, this just exposes the complete ignorance of the atheist raising the objection. No one is claiming that God needs to "tell us" anything, only that God needs to exist to be the basis of morality. Many theists believe that all men have some sort of moral conviction apart from direct revelation from God. Sure, God said, "Don't murder." But of course people knew murder was wrong before God ever gave the Jews the ten commandments.
Anyway, this objection dodges the point. Whether you need God to tell you something or not doesn't answer the question of why it's right or wrong to do something.
Euthyphro's Dilemma disproves Christian morality
Euthyphro's dilemma essentially asks, "Is X right because the gods approve of it, or do the gods approve of it because it's right?" This only disproves morality for religions that don't have an ultimate god (some ultimate authority), and philosophically disproves any moral system that says God chooses what is right and wrong. Neither of those applies to Christianity, however.
Christianity says that God Himself is the basis for morality. God does not choose what is right or wrong; God's own nature and character is the standard of morality.
This argument is a bit of a concession on the atheist's part that he in fact has no basis for morality. It's his attempt at saying, "Well, I have no basis for morality, but neither do you!" So as ineffective as the argument is against Christian morality, it's extremely potent in being self-defeating for the atheist.
Fark Conversation
Fark Conversation
Atheistic morality cannot exist; it is impossible to explain morality apart from a god. My posts in bold, the others' in italics:
In any case, contending Let God sort em out does nothing for the debate as "God" should not be referenced at all when weighing the moral and social consequences of this proposal. I would rather the offender be appropriately punished in the realm of reality rather than entrusting he may be dealt with by some mythological power of disputable existence.
And where does your "real" morality come from, if not from an objective source? Society? Some arbitrary rules you set up for yourself?
How about the obvious one? Don't hurt people. Not really that complicated. I always get so disgusted with religious folk who assume that agnostics/atheists must be totally amoral.
If you need Jesus to tell you that hurting people is bad, and the threat of Hell to convince you that doing the right thing is a good idea, then nothing I can post can help you.
I didn't ask what's good or bad, I asked what determined it? If morality is relative, it's not really morality. It's simply a personal choice on how to live. If morality is subjective, then it's simply a set of social agreements. Neither of these, of course, is actual morality. If you believe it's wrong to hurt someone, then WHY is it wrong to hurt someone? What if I believe it's RIGHT to hurt someone?
You'd say I'm wrong, of course, but then you'd be appealing to an absolute moral objectivity that exists OUTSIDE space and time, outside our influence, independent of us, that determines morality. You have to, if you believe in morality and are being logically consistent. Of course, something existing outside space and time and influence would be considered a god by almost any person. Atheists are logically inconsistent when they speak of morality. If you don't believe in an intelligent god, you at least believe in an absolute that transcends the universe and existed before and outside our own existence.
You say it's bad to hurt someone, but what basis is there for that? Without a god of absolute morality, your "moral" beliefs are arbitrary and meaningless.
A combination of things. The basic tenants of Humanism, the Golden Rule, and society and the social contract which includes the precepts laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It's really quite simple.
But what makes these things right? Because you chose to adhere to them instead of some other moral rule? Humanism was thought up by men, the "Golden Rule" was basically established by Christ, society is relative, and the Constitution and the Bill or Rights were both created by men.
If you take the "social contract" route, then you have no right to complain about the death penalty in Texas, because that's the social contract there, and thus it's right. You have no right to complain about South Carolina voting for Bush, because there, anyone that DIDN'T vote for Bush is morally wrong. You see the problem there? Your morality, as much as you hate to admit it, is not morality at all, but a preference of rules which you personally and arbitrarily chose to accept as being ethical.
See my above post. I explained how, necessarily, when someone speaks of morality, they are referencing a god. Atheist morality is logically inconsistent.
What makes your Bill of Rights and Humanistic philosophy morally right? How do you judge that?
Your 2nd to last post was...very misinformed. No offense.
I can refute it with a simple question. Which God do you choose to base your "absolute" morality off of?
Humanism was thought up by men,
And Religion was not?
Your morality, as much as you hate to admit it, is not morality at all, but a preference of rules which you personally and arbitrarily chose to accept as being ethical.
Hate to admit it? Sounds about right to me. The only difference between you and me is that I "arbitrarily" chose what is right and wrong whearas you choose to blindly follow what is written in a manmade book.
See my above post. I explained how, necessarily, when someone speaks of morality, they are referencing a god. Atheist morality is logically inconsistent.
That is simply inaccurate.
What makes your Bill of Rights and Humanistic philosophy morally right? How do you judge that?
I'm not gonna waste an hour trying to explain something to you that you obviously don't want hear. Maybe this will help you.
WHICH god I base my absolute morality on is not important to this debate. As much as you tried to argue in your last post, you've done nothing to help your case. You may call religion something created by man, but, though I believe the God of the Bible established His Church, I won't argue with you, because you still haven't explained how morality can exist outside of an absolute god. You're simply pointing a finger at me, saying, "YOU TOO!"
You than attack me and my religion, saying that I blindly follow a manmade book. Neither am I blindly following it, nor is it manmade, but rather it is theopneustos (God-breathed). But I won't argue with you on that, because again, that is not answering my question.
You then state that my conclusion in the above posts is inaccurate, yet provide no scrap of evidence or logical argument to refute my logical claim.
You then refuse to answer my question, claiming that it would take too long to explain. In fact, the link you provided me with appears to still have the same faults which I've argued against here in this very thred.
Your inital comment to me at the beginning of your last post was, "Your 2nd post was...very misinformed. No offense."
Yet you then attack Christians, which is off-topic, and provide no logical refutation of my arguments against atheistic morality. You should always back up your claims if you state them in such an absolute sense.
You then stated, "I can refute it with a simple question. Which God do you choose to base your 'aboslute' morality off of?"
That is not a refutation, but merely a distraction. No matter what answer I would give you, we would BOTH have to deal with the logical necessity of a moral god if we claim to believe in morality.
Nowhere have you refuted my claims. In fact, your intial question actually SUPPORTS my arguments against you, as it indicates how valid my logic is when you try, instead of refuting it, to use it against me.
[Blah blah..same old religious rhetoric attacking atheist morality...blah blah...]
This all comes back around to whether you believe in the divine nature of your God. I don't. You do. End of discussion. Everything you said in your previous posts deals with the definition of "morality" and how we, as humans, determine what is right and wrong. Perhaps you fail to recognize morality for what it is, a philosophical issue, not a religious one.
I would suggest your visit this website for clarification of that position and the definition of "morality."
ATTACKING atheistic morality? Merely giving a logical refutation of it, which you are unable to argue against. Morality may be a philisophical issue, but however you choose to define it, you still have to answer the arguments I've given you. You thus far have not been able to.
Easy proof that you are wrong: I have been mistreated by religious folk. I, as an atheist, try hard not to treat others as I would not be treated.
Explain to me how religion = morals now.
I did not once claim that religious folk act completely morally, and there is no justification for you reading that into my comments. I did not say that religion = morals, merely that atheistic morality is self-contradictory.
How does god decide what's moral? Throw darts?
I would suggest that God's nature decides what is moral. What is against God is immoral, what is in accordance with His nature is moral.
But it doesn't matter, and I won't argue that issue with you. You are trying to argue against my claims by suggesting that we don't know how God decides morality, but that doesn't in any way refute a single claim I've made, nor avoid the logical necessity of its accuracy.
EDIT: Someone made a comment attacking the integrity of this post. Aside from my personal assurance that I have not been deceitful in any way in this post, you can view the entire conversation here to check for yourselves.
