Ask an atheist—but don't expect any straight answers!

Post by **_atheist** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:34 pm

Derek,

This does not work where the rubber meets the road. Hitler and Stalin for one did all that they did with an end in mind of increasing quality of life and bringing about a utopian society. The only real way to make any claims of good and evil are to appeal to a source outside of ourselves from which we derive an "absolute" standard.

First of all, Stalin and Hitler clearly did not intend to "improve the quality of life for humans". They had delusions of grandiosity but they preached no utopia for ALL humanity. Maybe for their own nation as was in the case of Hitler. Besides, Hitler was a Catholic not an atheist. Remember "Gott mit Uns"?

In your view, there is no real absolute to appeal to. It is simply an agreed upon concept. It is simply opinion and if I come along and say for instance "it's good for me to eat, so I will kill this fellow so I can have more food" there is really nothing you can appeal to to say that I am wrong. At best you can only say "I don't agree" or "I don't like that idea much" and I can say "so what of it?" Where do we go from there?

Why is an agreed upon standard of behaviour not good enough? If the majority decides that it's evil to kill, rob or steal and we put in place the law enforcement systems to protect those agreed upon principles, why is a higher being necessary? Of course we don't have everything 100% right. There is more injustice to rectify but we'll get closer to an ideal the more work we put into it. That's what western societies have been doing for the past 50 years. We're not perfect, but we're evidently getting better.

To me the idea of good and evil, which in reality we all know exists, is where the atheist position simply falls apart. At least it was enough to convince me when I was an atheist.

How is the good vs evil argument a successful refutation of atheism? We as species evolved to be cooperative. Most animals protect their own kind. Humans evolved in the same way. We have a competitive streak but for the most part we do much better in a community. Thus we evolved a strong negative reaction towards harming other humans. Caring and empathy are very much built into our brains. There is even a group of neurons (spindle cells) solely dedicated to generating strong emotions when we see other humans suffer. It's within us to protect human liffe. I think we both agree here. It's just that I do not believe that this urge comes from a supernatural being.

Post by **_Derek** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:14 pm

First of all, Stalin and Hitler clearly did not intend to "improve the quality of life for humans". They had delusions of grandiosity but they preached no utopia for ALL humanity. Maybe for their own nation as was in the case of Hitler. Besides, Hitler was a Catholic not an atheist. Remember "Gott mit Uns"?

I actually edited out the Hitler/Stalin stuff as you were responding I guess. I felt that it was a bit emtional. But since we went there Hitler was clearly not a Christian and was in fact anti Christian. But let's for the sake of argument say he did profess to be one. It is clear that he was not because of his behavior. It is not a profession of faith that makes one Christian. It is following Christ. But anyway, I was hoping that it was edited out. Oh well...

Why is an agreed upon standard of behavior not good enough? If the majority decides that it's evil to kill, rob or steal and we put in place the law enforcement systems to protect those agreed upon principles, why is a higher being necessary?

Because it is merely opinion and your opinion is no better than anyone else’s. Even if more people agree with you than me (assuming there is no standard).

How is the good vs evil argument a successful refutation of atheism?

Because it is so evident that there is such a thing. We appeal to it all the time. You have several times as cited above by Christopher. There is an absolute by which we judge these things.

For instance. A two-year-old baby being viciously murdered is always wrong. It is wrong whether or not people agree that it is or not. I think you are sensible enough to realize that the act of murdering this baby would always be the wrong thing to do. If you agree with that statement then you are recognizing something transcendent that is outside of yourself. The only other option is to say that you just "don't like it". It is only wrong because you and maybe a whole lot of other people don't like it.

Would you say that this act of murder is only wrong because it harms another? Well it may bring great pleasure to the one doing it. In order to figure out who is right or wrong in the situation where do you turn? More importantly, would it be right and moral if everyone simply agreed that it was so? (I am especially interested in you answer to that last question).

I am not trying to be emotional with the whole baby thing, sorry if it offends anyone. It just seems like a real dilemma to me. Perhaps it's somthing you have thought through already.

Post by **_atheist** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:25 pm

Derek,
Just one point. The fact that you and I recognize that a murder of a baby is an inherently bad thing is not a sign of a divine being. We are wired to protect our own kind. We're naturally predisposed to be good to one another. It's part of our genetic makeup. No supernatural is required.

The universal concepts of good and evil which we "feel" instinctively are not of divine nature, I posit. They are the product of our cooperative instincts.

More importantly, would it be right and moral if everyone simply agreed that it was so? (I am especially interested in you answer to that last question).

This point is moot Derek. We simply do not have it in our brains to condone murder. You can hypothesise about a universe where some alien beings develop a moral code condoning indiscriminate killing of each other. I guess, for those creatures wired to just kill each other, it would appear to be a "good thing". But it isn't even realistic because such spiecies would obviously kill off one another very quickly.

Cooperation is more productive than lawless elimination. Sharing and is more productive than greed (eg. "Tragedy of the commons") thus we have a natural sense of compassion and charity. That's all observed in nature and logical. Again there is no necessity in invoking the supernatural to explain why we're basically mostly good by default. Nature wired us this way because it helps us to survive as spiecies.

Offtopic somewhat, Hitler signed the Concordate with Vatican and sought Church's support for his actions. He had a love-hate relationship with religion. I don't claim he followed the teachings of Christianity but he certainly whipped God into a lot of his speeches. These days, another nation leader tends to do the same frequently, I wonder what he's up to

Post by **_TK** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:13 pm

atheist said: "This point is moot Derek. We simply do not have it in our brains to condone murder. You can hypothesise about a universe where some alien beings develop a moral code condoning indiscriminate killing of each other. I guess, for those creatures wired to just kill each other, it would appear to be a "good thing"."

you mean like in Sudan and Rwanda?

Post by **_atheist** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:18 pm

TK,
Mass delusions fueled by propaganda spread by a small number of warped individuals do not refute my point. Humans are good and compassionate in general. They can be taught to act in reprehensible ways but that is far from the natural state of things. I don't claim humans are perfect or incapable of sensless violence and hatred. I just stated that humans do have a "compassionate gene" which naturally directs them to behave towards one another.

In a way, your example supports my point. If there was any natural reason for humans to be violent towards each other then there would have been some discernable benefit to the Rwandan genocide. Since we can point to absolutely zero benefit to either side of that bloodshed it's obvious that nature did the right thing in providing us with natural repulsion towards harming humans.

Post by **_TK** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:34 pm

yes, but unfortunately the people pulling the triggers dont seem to have the repulsion, apparently. so what good's the repulsion?

Post by **_atheist** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:41 pm

yes, but unfortunately the people pulling the triggers dont seem to have the repulsion, apparently. so what good's the repulsion?

And to counter those trigger happy crazies, we have established the secular so called law enforcement agencies

Post by **_Jim** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:57 am

athiest,

It appears to me that you believe people are generally good which I do agree with but we all fall short of always doing what is good. Here is what I see you saying is you are about building relationships for the general overall welfare of society as a whole. Am I right? If I am I find it ironic you have choosen to reject the teachings of scripture. The reasons why is I see that scripture is all about building relationships with each other and with God. In scripture it shows the very things that cause damage in relationships for example adultry, stealing, lying etc. all of which can be called evil and relationship damaging with consequences. It also teaches what it is to truly love (agape) others. To put it short God is all about interpersonal and social relationships.

Now as far as labeling people extremist I have seen great evil in societies that totally rejected the concept of God, estimated 100 million killed in russia, china, cambodia, etc in the last century alone. I have also seen people who claim to follow God but don't follow his teachings doing great evil for example mid-evil roman catholicisim. Do I view ben laden is evil, yes. Do I see Bush as evil, not necessarily, as I don't see his response as a religious response, but a response to an attack to the very country he is sworn by oath to protect. Was it the right decision to attack Iraq? Who knows only history will tell.

In short I do believe we all have good qualities but in the end we are all also scum (relationship damaging charateristics). As a Christian I admit I have scum qualites and that I cannot over come them on my own which is why I need Jesus.

God Bless,

Jim

After thought Athiest, do you have children? Have you ever seen a small child hall of and hit another child over a toy? Commiting wrongs is not necessarily a taught response.

Post by **_SoaringEagle** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:18 pm

I just stated that humans do have a "compassionate gene" which naturally directs them to behave towards one another.

This is commonly known as the "conscience" of man, no?

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:01 pm

As far as the complexity of DNA goes. It's actually not as complex as it seems! There is a lot of "data" in the genome but much of it is "junk" basically there for historical reasons. Now, you wouldn't expect a Designer (especially the perfect one) to put junk code into its creation?

Hi A, Re DNA i beg to differ, it's incredibly complex and although it's mostly mapped out , that's just scratching the surface. I can't imagine one person's DNA being created by an undirected process much less trillions of living things.
Re the junk DNA , firstly it has'nt been that long ago that "science" thought that a few weeks old fetus was just a mound of jello however now "science" has learned how complex this fetus actually is and perhaps someday "science" will find out that the junk may not actually be junk. Secondly even if it is junk as a former christian you may remember that we live in a fallen world and because of man's sin God's creation has been corrupted and therefore imperfect things happen due to our free will being exercised.
Re Bush and Bin Laden, they are only people. The only person who defines Christianity is Christ and what he said would make this world into heaven on earth if all people would follow his commands. As for Islam the sad fact is that much of the Quran does encourage violence and we are seeing the fruit of it's teachings.
Re the RCC accepting evolution , i think this is unfortunate and is probably the result of some committee decision taking the path of least resistence.