Why don't Atheists run amok?

[dafydd]

The Piano Has Been Drinking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUeKDtMV1gA&feature=related

 

[I Am The Scum]

Could any linguist try to untangle the English here?

I've looked up other versions, but they also don't really make sense either.

He's my re-wording of the verse. I took out some repetitive information, and some stuff that just plain didn't make sense.

Sometimes people have no knowledge of God's law, but they still act in accordance with it (that is to say, they follow it). They do so because the law is "written on their hearts."

This is plain old by-the-Book apologetics, and it falls into precisely the same errors, namely, it doesn't actually prove it's case. It's an assertion. Nothing more.

It does highlight one interesting observation, though. For the sake of the following points, when I speak of "morality," I'm speaking generally about what most of us would recognize as moral behavior. We don't have to bother getting into the particulars on this one.

There are certain trends in human morality, even among cultures that have little to no contact among the outside world. This bears investigation. The odds of this being a random fluke are somewhat slim. So what's going on?

The religious people have their explanation. Since the Bible was brought up, let's stick with Christianity. We can't outright discount the possibility that God made us, and did so in such a way that we follow certain trends in behavior. There might be free-will issues here, but let's ignore that for a moment. As far as explanations go, this is a weak one, not only for the previously mentioned lack of evidence, but also for the problems that arise from it.

God tells people to do bad things. Really bad things. You know, like killing your family... with rocks. How do I know these things are bad? Why, because my heart tells me so, of course! See what I'm getting at? Why would there be a disparity between our inherent sense of right and wrong, and what God tells us to do? Shouldn't they line up perfectly? God wants us to follow his commands, and yet he created us in such a way that we are less likely to do so? This explanation sucks!

So let's get a new one. I have two, and they're not mutually exclusive, either.

If all humans share a common ancestor, then it follows that all humans tend to share common traits inherited traits.. This is why humans have a backbone, two hands, etc. We shouldn't make an exception to brain structure. Now, if our behavior is a matter of brain structure, then it would fallow that a common brain structure would tend to create common behaviors. See what I'm getting at? The evidence shows us that both of these things are true. Evolution and neurology are well-proven sciences.

Now, I'm not expecting any Bible-thumpin' science-hating creationist worth his weight in purchased diplomas to agree with any of that. So I have a simpler one.

People tend to learn what is proper and improper behavior from those around them. Society does play a role in how we perceive these things. In addition, there are certain behaviors that tend to cause people to be less likely to survive. You know... murder, violence, all that stuff. As these bad things increase, the likelihood that a given isolated population will go extinct also increases. Do we see these societies? No. If they ever do get to that point, they disappear. This is why we don't see disasterously immoral societies. It's easy to see how moral behaviors will naturally "trend" in certain directions, and that the less survivable ones will fail to carry on.

Yeah, I know I'm using the principle of natural selection there, but don't tell that to the Christians. You'll scare them off.

So there you have it. Explanations of moral behavior amongst humanity. Once again, God is both unnecessary and problematic.

 

[Brian-M]

Guys, we've gone over this a million times.

1. Hitler sinned.
2. Christians never sin.
C. Hitler wasn't a Christian.

That's logic, pinheads.

Or to take it one step further...

1. Christians never sin.
2. All men [people] are sinners. (Christian tenant.)
C. There are no Christians.

 

[Complexity]

There are no Christians.

Good news for modern man.

 

[HoverBoarder]

If there's no god and there's no rules or consequences to life what does it matter what you do in life?

If good and bad are merely subjective terms why don't Atheists do whatever they want whenever they want?

Do Atheists live by morals and ethics they have inherited from Theists?

In case anyone doesn't already know, I'm an Atheist.

Most don't because of socially instilled values. Of course when they do, it can be just as bad as when religious people run amok. One of the main examples is Communist inspired massacres.

The main factor that decides whether you will run amok or not is not religion, it is moral certainty. When you are 100% sure that your morals are perfect, than it paves the way to act in horrifically atrocious ways to those who do not share the same morals as you do.

 

[catsmate]

Thought so - thanks.

There's also this thread.

 

[catsmate]

Ironically, Darwin's work was on the list of books banned by The Third Reich.

Hitler and the NSDAP also suppressed atheist, humanist and freethinker groups (including imprisoning and murdering their leaders) while encouraging xianity.

 

[catsmate]

Interesting how so many of you 'skeptics' are only too happy to take genocidal dictators at their word... when it suits your own belief system.

Not nearly as interesting as the way those suffering from religion are to deny those who murderous actions are inspired by religion.

By their fruits you shall know them.

Exactly. When they put into practice the murderous commands of the xian 'god' they truly demonstrate their xianity.

(Clue for the truly retarded: rather than believe everything a genocidal dictator says, simply look at their actions to discern their real worldview, motivations and inspiration)

You seem desperate to deny the reality of Hitler's xianity because it invalidates your position.

As I said in my first post, this is because the only atheist materialists who run amok are those whose actions are fanatically harmonious with their actual worldview. The rest, in practice, behave as if mankind was more than merely material.

So you think you understand atheists better than they do (hint: you don't you're projecting) but retain atheism to blame for mass murderers.

The key in your response is the word empathy. In a materialist world there is no justification whatsoever for having empathy for some being from whom you cannot materially benefit.

Actually, no.

In a theistic world the possibilities for empathy are opened up because the identities of empathiser and 'empathee' are not necessarily restricted to their biological loci, immediate interests and the like.

Well, I guess you believe everything people tell you then

Like those who take theie morality from a collection of bronze age fairy tales....

 

[catsmate]

Ah, so Stalin and Mao were also Christians then?

Well Stalin was brought up an xian and was educated at the Gori Theological School (where he received excellent grades and was a choir singer) and at the Tiflis seminary, studying for the priesthood for five years.

 

[PixyMisa]

True, though I suspect he may have changed his mind later on. In reality, anyway, not necessarily in Captain Obvious's world.

 

[The Norseman]

Here's Paul on the whether non-believers can be moral:

"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them." (Rom 2:14-15, NKJV)

I came in late on this, thought I'd give it a go:

Gentiles who do the right thing are doing the right thing because God wrote all the good things in everyone's heart. Their conscience sees all the good stuff aaannnddd... not sure about the last part... their thoughts of what they do are either accepted or condemned?

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I came in late on this, thought I'd give it a go:

Gentiles who do the right thing are doing the right thing because God wrote all the good things in everyone's heart. Their conscience sees all the good stuff aaannnddd... not sure about the last part... their thoughts of what they do are either accepted or condemned?

A very odd thing to find in the bible, considering that the basic idea of the bible is that you can't be a good person without it.

If the passage says that the rules are already "in us", then what do we need the book for?

 

[catsmate]

True, though I suspect he may have changed his mind later on. In reality, anyway, not necessarily in Captain Obvious's world.

There's evidence that Stalin became an atheist while at the seminary (hardly uncommon) though establishing details about his life is difficult.

 

[The Norseman]

A very odd thing to find in the bible, considering that the basic idea of the bible is that you can't be a good person without it.

If the passage says that the rules are already "in us", then what do we need the book for?

That would be a logical question! I would hazard a guess and say that it would be argued that the goodness is written on our hearts by God, but we are then free to ignore it (and suffer eternal damnation) because God also gave us the power to choose.

 

[RandFan]

That would be a logical question! I would hazard a guess and say that it would be argued that the goodness is written on our hearts by God, but we are then free to ignore it (and suffer eternal damnation) because God also gave us the power to choose.

I'm not sure how that answers the question as to why the Bible is necessary or even important for morality.

 

[The Norseman]

I'm not sure how that answers the question as to why the Bible is necessary or even important for morality.

How else would have the illiterate commoners have received the wisdom of what's already there?

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

How else would have the illiterate commoners have received the wisdom of what's already there?

Illiterate, eh?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm thinking the passage in question is the origin of the Christian argument that:

People (atheists) who live good lives are Christians, they just don't know it.

 

[phildonnia]

I'm pretty sure it's saying that despite Gentiles not having the laws set down by God, they're still following them because the laws aren't just commands, they're the natural thing to do. I'm not sure what the reference to thoughts means.

I think that's exactly what it means. Paul is basically saying "Don't use the morality argument, because the unbelievers are just as moral as we are." It is interesting that he also mentions "thoughts" as the source of law, and the pangs of conscience as a motivator in those who "have not the law".

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I think that's exactly what it means. Paul is basically saying "Don't use the morality argument, because the unbelievers are just as moral as we are." It is interesting that he also mentions "thoughts" as the source of law, and the pangs of conscience as a motivator in those who "have not the law".

In other words, the bible actually says that the law is inherent, which renders reading the ten commandments unnecessary.