Without God, atheists have no morals and will eat babies on a whim etc.

Overblood

This is about the "atheists have no morals" argument where some Christians say that we are destined to eat babies etc. once we denounce god. For example: http://www.thelocal.de/national/20090413-18607.html

We've all heard the old religious argument that an atheist has no moral code to live by. Without the bible as a guide, we don't know right nor wrong and are bound to commit more evil than your average Christian. From what I've heard, apostacy from Christianity is a launch pad for rape, assault, debauchery etc. (basically you become a priest without the god bit)

As I and I'm sure many others have experienced, disbelief in god and his commandments actually doesn't make you a more wicked person. I know a few atheists on this board have kids, and have, or will, raise a human being to full adulthood without even a peek at scripture for guidance.

My point is: do you think that since a Christian is forgiven for every sin he/she commits (bar the deniance of the holy spirit), is that not an even bigger incitement to violence than your average non-believer? That you are forgiven no matter what?

As an atheist, I know that if I murder 48 children in a playground I will get a life sentence, die in jail, get buried and be eaten and shat out by worms, thus fertilizing the soil allowing for opmtimum grass regrowth. And that's it, game over for Overblood. THAT IS IT. In Texas, I'd be hung, drawn and quartered before even stepping a foot into the court room. As an atheist, I really would like to stay away from any situation like that. This is my only life. Live it well.

A christian who murders 48 kids however, would simply have to repent before death, giving them access to the paradise they always wanted. You end up in eternal bliss no matter what.

So would a believer in a life-after-death paradise be more willing to commit crime than an atheist? As I said, there are reprocussions for atheists. Whereas jail would just be a waiting room for a believer.

(I know muslim suicide bombers love killing people but I'm talking about Christians)

Is this a sound argument? I haven't seen it here before. If this point has been made before could somebody please refer me to it?

fitz0

I think its down to the individual either way. IMO people just use religion as an excuse. Pretty good way to plead insanity "God told me to." I honestly think religion has little to do with it unless its a religious crime obviously. Some people are just more open to violence for whatever reason.

At the same time it seems like a pretty sound argument to me, this is our only life so we don't really want to throw it away whereas believers are granted everlasting life so long as they believe (it might be a bit awkward to meet your victim in heavan methinks)

pH

fitz0 wrote: »

I think its down to the individual either way. IMO people just use religion as an excuse. Pretty good way to plead insanity "God told me to." I honestly think religion has little to do with it unless its a religious crime obviously. Some people are just more open to violence for whatever reason.

You have this the wrong way round, the claim isn't that religion causes people to do evil things (which could be argued elsewhere) rather the claim that *without* religion people are naturally evil and inclined to morally repugnant acts.

This is easily discounted in 2 ways, logically there's no way to get from the statement "God exists" to a moral code, and secondly through observing societies with high religious observance (say Rwanda circa 1994) with those with low or none (say Sweden 2009) and drawing your own conclusions.

kiffer

Overblood wrote: »

As an atheist, I know that if I murder 48 children in a playground I will get a life sentence, die in jail, get buried and be eaten and shat out by worms, thus fertilizing the soil allowing for opmtimum grass regrowth.

Not if you don't get caught.

A christian who murders 48 kids however, would simply have to repent before death, giving them access to the paradise they always wanted. You end up in eternal bliss no matter what.

I'm pretty damn sure that they don't think about it this way... The idea is that you have to actually mean it when you repent... you can't just plan to repent right after you finish your killing spree...

So would a believer in a life-after-death paradise be more willing to commit crime than an atheist?

Well... all the talk about objective morality vs subjective morality in the last while has me drawing the following conclusions...

Simplification of My Subjective Moral View: Killing is wrong, unless it's in self defense, or the defense of another person... and only in the heat of the moment, it should not be used as a punishment after the fact, although there maybe complex situations where it becomes a requirement... these situations should be avoided.
Gross over simplification of my view of Some Christians' Subjective Views Of Gods 'Objective' Morality: Killing is wrong when ever it goes against God's will... God's will has in the past included, no demanded, killing people. So in similar situations it's ok to kill.
So it is not morally wrong to kill someone for working on the sabbath but it is illegal and we should keep to the law of the land.

fitz0

pH wrote: »

You have this the wrong way round, the claim isn't that religion causes people to do evil things (which could be argued elsewhere) rather the claim that *without* religion people are naturally evil and inclined to morally repugnant acts.

I know, I'm just saying that its nothing really to do with religion at all. People do bad things with or without religion. Religion doesn't hold you to a higher standard, people can easily use it to justify their actions, as with any set of rules.

Overblood

I'm not talking about murder in the name of god, like 9/11 or the Crusades & all those other weapons used in anti-religion arguments. I'm talking about plain 'ol murder.



"Hey you had sexual relations with mah husband *chik chik* BOOM"

kiffer wrote: »

I'm pretty damn sure that they don't think about it this way... The idea is that you have to actually mean it when you repent... you can't just plan to repent right after you finish your killing spree...

They believe in god while comminting murder, then on their deathbed they repent. Is that not a possibility? If they know that they are doing wrong, but go ahead with it anyways, and once they emerge from the murderous act, repent and confess, in all honesty, all the while believing in god, could they not get into heaven?

the claim isn't that religion causes people to do evil things, rather the claim that *without* religion people are naturally evil and inclined to morally repugnant acts.

This is easily discounted in 2 ways...

It can easily be discounted in many many more ways than 2!

robindch

Overblood wrote: »

This is about the "atheists have no morals" argument where some Christians say that we are destined to eat babies

The "you can't be good without god" argument has been doing the rounds for thousands of years. Christians didn't create it, and no doubt, they'll not be the last to use it. One of the charges against Socrates for which he was subsequently executed was that he didn't believe in the city gods. And here's Epicurus writing several centuries before Christ, complaining about being misrepresented by the religious:

Epicurus wrote:

When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not an unbroken succession of drinking-bouts and of revelry, not sexual lust, not the enjoyment of the fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul. Of all this the beginning and the greatest good is wisdom.

Overblood wrote: »

So would a believer in a life-after-death paradise be more willing to commit crime than an atheist?

Well, it seems a fairly well-attested fact that there are very, very few atheists in prison.

...which suggests that either they don't commit crimes, or if they do, they don't get caught, or if they do, they don't get sent to prison, or if they do, they lie about their religious beliefs to prison stats researchers while awaiting parole...

kiffer

Overblood wrote: »

"Hey you had sexual relations with mah husband *chik chik* BOOM"

Crime of passion... my guess is it's just as likely if all other factors being equal...

They believe in god while comminting murder, then on their deathbed they repent. Is that not a possibility? If they know that they are doing wrong, but go ahead with it anyways, and once they emerge from the murderous act, repent and confess, in all honesty, all the while believing in god, could they not get into heaven?

My guess is that the most logical view internal to general christian teachings is... if they make a plan along the lines of.
Step one, Go on killing/rape spree for the fun of it,
Step two, repent ask for forgiveness
Step three, go to heaven...
Then it probably won't work as they are not likely to actually mean their step two... although it's possible that they could...

Where as someone who commits a murder and then later actually regrets it (Edit: and not just regrets getting caught...) and asks for forgiveness is a shoe-in for eternal air hockey with the big man with the white beard...

Overblood

Oops! Misread a post. Carry on.

Overblood

Ok, Kiffer. You've poked a few holes in my argument, and that's good, I am OK with that! See what a good scientifically minded atheist I am?

My guess is that the most logical view internal to general christian teachings is... if they make a plan along the lines of.
Step one, Go on killing/rape spree for the fun of it,
Step two, repent ask for forgiveness
Step three, go to heaven...
Then it probably won't work as they are not likely to actually mean their step two... although it's possible that they could...

OK you know that logic doesn't factor into religion... Isn't it possible that a person would be more willing to kill if they believe in god? If they believe that they have god on their side, watching over them, and they kill somebody, could they be deluded into thinking that they will end up in heaven? And let's face it, all christians are deluded.

Remember I'm not arguing against you. I just want to know if this is a sound argument. I know that we may have a few visitors from the Christianity forum, and you may ask why I'm discussing this in full view, but they are the least of my worries. This is for face to face debate in the real world. ie. IN WORK!! I'm 3feet away from them all day and they're telling me I'm going to hell. I just need some help!

kiffer

Overblood wrote: »

Ok, Kiffer. You've poked a few holes in my argument, and that's good, I am OK with that! See what a good scientifically minded atheist I am?

Welcome to the club... I'll see your Scientifically Minded Atheism and raise you my Strong Agnosticism, defaulting to Atheism when pressed to get off the fence, while holding out on answering to the possibility of a Deistic Prime Mover (at some very distant pre-pre-bigbang point in the cosmological past) on ignostic grounds...


EDIT: also I talk a lot of arse.

Húrin

pH wrote: »

This is easily discounted in 2 ways, logically there's no way to get from the statement "God exists" to a moral code, and secondly through observing societies with high religious observance (say Rwanda circa 1994) with those with low or none (say Sweden 2009) and drawing your own conclusions.

The statement that "God exists" is not a religion. It is a philosophical position based on observations of the world.

I don't see how you can credibly advise selecting two such societies when your selections are clearly designed to give an answer that you like. It fails also to take account of any of the thousands of factors other than the church attendance records.

Overblood wrote: »

They believe in god while comminting murder, then on their deathbed they repent. Is that not a possibility? If they know that they are doing wrong, but go ahead with it anyways, and once they emerge from the murderous act, repent and confess, in all honesty, all the while believing in god, could they not get into heaven?

Believing in God is not the same as being a Christian. A complete spiritual transformation would be required for the above. It happens, but it can't be foreseen before the act.

Overblood

kiffer wrote: »

[I hold] out on answering to the possibility of a Deistic Prime Mover (at some very distant pre-pre-bigbang point in the cosmological past) on ignostic grounds...

That's perfectly alright with me. One can believe in whatever they want regarding the pre-happenings of the big bang. Some believe that it's an ever lasting wave of collapsing and expanding universes, others believe that a being of italian spaghetti origin willed it to life, where as I believe that our universe is contained in a giant undulating turd floating in a sea of nothingness. The undulations are the cause of the red and blue shift we observe in the celestial bodies surrounding us. There are many different hypothises. Just keep it to yourself until it can be theorized!

Overblood

Overblood wrote: »

They believe in god while comminting murder, then on their deathbed they repent. Is that not a possibility? If they know that they are doing wrong, but go ahead with it anyways, and once they emerge from the murderous act, repent and confess, in all honesty, all the while believing in god, could they not get into heaven?

Húrin wrote: »

Believing in God is not the same as being a Christian. A complete spiritual transformation would be required for the above. It happens, but it can't be foreseen before the act.

If I was to change the aforementioned piece to:

Overblood wrote: »

A Christian commits murder, then on their deathbed they repent. Is that not a possibility? If they know that they are doing wrong, but go ahead with it anyways, and once they emerge from the murderous act, repent and confess, in all honesty, all the while believing in god, could they not get into heaven?

What do you say?

kiffer

Overblood wrote: »

OK you know that logic doesn't factor into religion...

Often it does... but starts from flawed assumptions, which ruin many of the resultant answers...

Isn't it possible that a person would be more willing to kill if they believe in god?

Sure a person might be... individuals are pretty different... It depends what that person believes about their god...

If they believe that they have god on their side, watching over them, and they kill somebody, could they be deluded into thinking that they will end up in heaven? And let's face it, most all christians are deluded.

Deluded is a pretty strong word... but yeah if a believer becomes convinced that God is telling them to kill then chances are they would be nuts even if they didn't believe...

Remember I'm not arguing against you. I just want to know if this is a sound argument. I know that we may have a few visitors from the Christianity forum, and you may ask why I'm discussing this in full view, but they are the least of my worries. This is for face to face debate in the real world. ie. IN WORK!! I'm 3feet away from them all day and they're telling me I'm going to hell. I just need some help!

... this is a whole different problem ...
You have to work with these people, don't fight with them.
Don't fall in to the trap of attacking them, saying "you'd kill if God told you to"... might give them Ideas...
Ask them if they think babies in china are going to hell... ask them if they think their God is loving and work up from there...

Also ... start saying "Judge not lest ye be Judged" and "Do on to others as you would have done on to you... No, You're going to hell because a 'real' Christian wouldn't be such a jerk about it."

I mean how often are they trying to 'Save' you... or are they just pointing at you and going "You're going to hell?"

Húrin

Overblood wrote: »

If I was to change the aforementioned piece to:

What do you say?

The same thing. An atheist could also commit the same crime, then be converted and repent and gain eternal life. Either way the conversion cannot be foreseen.

Another flaw in your argument is that it assumes eternal life to be universally desirable. Most atheists in my experience, dislike the idea of eternal life and are more comforted by the ~75 year limit that we know.

But the basic problem is that not many religious people go around saying that "Without God, atheists have no morals and will eat babies on a whim". You're refuting easy straw men in place of the more difficult arguments that theists actually use.

Goduznt Xzst

correct me if I'm wrong but in regards to the parameters of the argument I agree with Húrin.

It seems to be a common misconception amongst Atheists, on the morality issue, that the argument they are presented with is as follows:

God has created a universal morality. Theists have this morality. Theists postulate that Atheists are therefore immoral as they do not believe in God and have this morality removed

This is not, generally I've found, the case. The argument they are making is:

God has created a universal morality. EVERYONE has this morality. Regardless of whether you are a theist or atheist the very fact that you are moral is evidence (in their opinion) that Gods universal morality exists.
They view it like gravity, whether you accept it or not it will still act upon you.

Where this murderer/rapist claim comes from has nothing to do with whether you choose to be a Theist or Atheist. It has to do with what they imagine society would look like if God removed his governing universal morality.

The argument has nothing to do with the morality of Atheists (although I accept this line tends to be blurred on both sides) rather the claim from Atheists that God is not needed for morality to exist.
i.e. for example:

how an Atheist can confuse the argument: Agent A) chooses to not accept gravity, thus he begins to float

what a Theist is actually arguing: If God stopped gravity humans would begin to float

How an Atheist should argue this point: God is not needed for gravity to exist

bluesguitar

it really bugs me all this morality being a religious its pure human nature to feel compassion, guilt, love blah blah! Was around before religion was even dreamt of!

Joe1919

This is a very old argument (399B.C.) The Euthyphro Dilemma (variation of Plato's)

(1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will.
(3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God’s will.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good.
(5) If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then there is no reason either to care about God’s moral goodness or to worship him.
(6) There are reasons both to care about God’s moral goodness and to worship him.
Therefore:
(7) It is not the case that (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
Therefore:
(8) Divine command theory is false.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/christian-ethics/divine-command-theory/the-euthyphro-dilemma/

philologos

Overblood wrote: »

My point is: do you think that since a Christian is forgiven for every sin he/she commits (bar the deniance of the holy spirit), is that not an even bigger incitement to violence than your average non-believer? That you are forgiven no matter what?

It's not no matter what. The condition is you repent and do not do it again. God knows what the inclinations of the heart are to judge you for what you have done.

I think this quote will clear up this considerably:

Galatians 5:13 wrote:

For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters;[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence,[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] but through love become slaves to one another

Having been given grace and mercy to put ourselves right with God, having received this and not bearing repentance of any kind is throwing your forgiveness back in Christ's face.

vinchick

I always wondered about that. Do you actually have to mean it? From the sounds of answers I have gotten its the fact you came to god that matters, but you should really try and not do it again.

Its not the repenting thing that bothers me too much its the predestination argument that bugs me the most. If you were always meant to to do and it was sent out in gods plan for you, how can you be guilty? You had no free will in the act as it was gods hands leading you towards the point. You in a sense have no capacity to make the decision and cannot form the guilty mind (the mens rea). Nutty....

philologos

vinchick wrote: »

I always wondered about that. Do you actually have to mean it? From the sounds of answers I have gotten its the fact you came to god that matters, but you should really try and not do it again.

Yes. Of course. God will know what the intention of your heart is.

vinchick wrote: »

Its not the repenting thing that bothers me too much its the predestination argument that bugs me the most. If you were always meant to to do and it was sent out in gods plan for you, how can you be guilty? You had no free will in the act as it was gods hands leading you towards the point. You in a sense have no capacity to make the decision and cannot form the guilty mind (the mens rea). Nutty....

Predestination even bothered Calvin who came up with it. He apparently dreaded the idea, but he felt that it was most consistent with the Bible. I don't know the ins and outs of it, you might want to take it up with wolfsbane on the Christianity forum.

is_that_so

pH wrote: »

You have this the wrong way round, the claim isn't that religion causes people to do evil things (which could be argued elsewhere) rather the claim that *without* religion people are naturally evil and inclined to morally repugnant acts.

This is easily discounted in 2 ways, logically there's no way to get from the statement "God exists" to a moral code, and secondly through observing societies with high religious observance (say Rwanda circa 1994) with those with low or none (say Sweden 2009) and drawing your own conclusions.

I'd say you'd be drawing the wrong conclusions entirely. Rwanda was about tribalism, and more representative of a "not us" scenario, and pure mob rule. Furthermore it was at the bottom level on the Maslow Hierarchy. You can't apply any belief structure, atheist or otherwise, to such primaeval responses.

vinchick

Found a nice quote that fits in with the discussion:

Every church unconsciously allows people to commit crimes on credit. --

Robert Green Ingersoll

more tea vicar

Without atheism, the problem is you could be lead into the risky religious ways and morals.

pH

is_that_so wrote: »

I'd say you'd be drawing the wrong conclusions entirely. Rwanda was about tribalism, and more representative of a "not us" scenario, and pure mob rule. Furthermore it was at the bottom level on the Maslow Hierarchy. You can't apply any belief structure, atheist or otherwise, to such primaeval responses.

Still, 95% of the population were at the time Christians, the argument is that religion in general, and Christianity in particular gives people morals, and somehow make them behave better.

Calling these people "primitive" has fairly racist overtones, Christianity is responsible for all the good behaviour in civilised white Europe, but not quite powerful enough to combat the tribalism and mob rule of those primitive black Africans?

philologos

Overblood wrote: »

We've all heard the old religious argument that an atheist has no moral code to live by. Without the bible as a guide, we don't know right nor wrong and are bound to commit more evil than your average Christian. From what I've heard, apostacy from Christianity is a launch pad for rape, assault, debauchery etc. (basically you become a priest without the god bit)

It's clear that you actually don't want a serious discussion about this. Why can't there be a single thread without trying to take a jab at the other.

Overblood

Ah lighten up.

Dades

To be fair, Overblood, the kind of reference highlighted by Jakkass isn't really welcome in a discussion.

is_that_so

pH wrote: »

Still, 95% of the population were at the time Christians, the argument is that religion in general, and Christianity in particular gives people morals, and somehow make them behave better.

Calling these people "primitive" has fairly racist overtones, Christianity is responsible for all the good behaviour in civilised white Europe, but not quite powerful enough to combat the tribalism and mob rule of those primitive black Africans?

It still doesn't serve as a good example irrespective of what their belief structure was. It's a gross oversimplification of what took place. The corruption of organised belief systems is often IMO used and overused as a convenient justification against them. It also might be useful to read what I said and not to offer your own projections on my comments. I don't recall using the word primitive. And please spare me the race card. You might want to look up what primaeval response means. And do look at Maslow, it is instructive in the point I was making.

Húrin

pH wrote: »

Still, 95% of the population were at the time Christians, the argument is that religion in general, and Christianity in particular gives people morals, and somehow make them behave better.

Calling these people "primitive" has fairly racist overtones, Christianity is responsible for all the good behaviour in civilised white Europe, but not quite powerful enough to combat the tribalism and mob rule of those primitive black Africans?

Europe? Good behaviour? lol

Christianity isn't about giving people morals. It's about giving people forgiveness.