(May 3, 2009 at 1:08 am)Charles Wrote: Well, my question was “assuming atheism is true, why do atheists such as Russell feel any need to complain about the alleged immorality of theists?” I did not assert that "atheists are immoral/amoral." I’m asserting that the whole question of morality is absurd for the atheist.
Same thing isn't it? If morality is absurd for the atheist (as you assert) then how can an atheist possibly be moral? Morality exists in the world, we know this, we have people studying it. Absolute morality doesn't exist, and if you look at the past 50 years you will see how different countries have adapted to social change, and the morality we had back in the 60's is not the morality we have today. Biblical morality falls under the same rules; sure there are some good ones "Thou shalt not kill/steal" etc, but there are some rubbish ones like the ones involving adulterers (especially if you use the "lust is adultery of the heart") and homosexuals. Furthermore, the Bible advocates slavery, which thankfully today's society has classed as almost worse than murder.
Quote:That’s the point. If morality is merely conventional or preferential, why don’t atheists make such a claim?
Atheists don't make the claim that Hitler's gas chambers have the same moral import as Mother Teresa's (she was a good atheist btw) charity work, and we shouldn't "ought to". In our society, the gas chambers are considered very morally wrong, and Mother Teresa's work morally right. However in Hitler's society the roles were reversed, he thought his gas chambers were very very good things. (I'm not sure how he would have felt about Mother Teresa though
)
Quote:Ethics is a meaningless concept for the atheist. Morality is a meaningless concept for the atheist. They are merely matters of opinion or tradition, which are both meaningless. The universe doesn’t care what meat-machines do to each other. Why should you or I?
No they aren't, they are matters of nature. Our moral code is part of how we survive as a species, and even animals have a certain moral compass (although by all accounts it is probably instinctual). In order to survive as a species we have evolved a conscience that adapts to certain situations and helps form a society morality. If you really have to ask the question "Why should I care about other humans" then I suggest you think about what would happen if we all suddenly decided murder was ok. Chaos, that is what would happen. Are you honestly saying that without the Bible or without God you wouldn't be able to tell right from wrong in your society? That is a
very scary prospect. Thank goodness I'm an atheist.
Quote:Why bother living within such constraints? When you die you’ll cease to exist and the universe could care less how you lived your life. Live a moral life, live an immoral life, both are absurd and meaningless notions. Why the pretense that you live a moral life?
Living a moral life is the only way society can function. We depend on society, and society asks only one thing of us: to uphold a certain moral code. People who don't live moral lives get sent to jail (removed from society) so that society can function.
Quote:“Moral law,” “moral relativism,” and “moral authority” are absurd and meaningless concepts.
No, and I'm surprised that you would state "moral law" is absurd seeing as you are the one advocating it from the Bible. A moral law is any restriction we impose on society based on ethical grounds (i.e. do not murder). These laws are not set in stone, they can be changed or removed completely (as with the legalization of homosexuality in Britain a few decades ago). This also defines moral relativism, that any moral law can be viewed as immoral by another society, and indeed not enforced by that society if they so wish. For instance, in the UK it is a crime to stone adulterers, but in the Middle East this is seen as just and fair. The moral authority is whoever dictates the morals. In a dictatorship, this is usually the government, but in a democracy, it is usually the collective mind of the people.
Quote:All of which are absurdities in an atheistic universe. Again, I am accusing no one. I just asked the question “assuming atheism is true, why do atheists such as Russell feel any need to complain about the alleged immorality of theists?” My intention is not to be personally offensive, but to underscore the inevitable result of atheistic presuppositions regarding ethics. Just as I have little patience for Christians who deny the doctrine of Hell because they find it distasteful, so I have little patience for atheists who make a great show of affirming the existence of moral standards in a universe where there are none, and indeed wherein the very concept of morality is an absurd one.
No, no, no, no. This is all repetition so please read the above. There are no moral standards of the universe itself, but there are moral standards of societies and groups. To deny this obvious fact would be to be absurd. I suggest you read some of Daniel Dennett's work, a man who is an ethical philosopher and works on explaining such concepts.
