The argument from morality is scary.

[genkaus]

Theists seem to think that the argument from morality (because morality exists, god must exist) is one of the stronger arguments that they have. I hear it over and over again in debates. To me it is both scary and insulting.

The insulting part is that it implies that Atheists are bad people. Because we don't believe in god we somehow are likely to rape and murder and molest children. This is despite all evidence to the contrary, that Atheists commit less crime and that being religious actually makes you more likely to molest children, maybe due to sexual repression. Although I don't think, perhaps for political reasons, the subject has not been adequately studied.

The scary part is that behind that suggestion, is that anybody making the argument has the desire to go out and rape and kill. The only thing keeping them back is whatever holy book they subscribe too. I worry about these people. Is this argument basically a confession by whatever person who is making it that they have an inborn desire to do terrible things? Is it really a belief in god that is constraining them?

You know, as vehemently as I disagree with the idea, it is quite easy for me to see it from their perspective.

So, here you have a person who has been taught from the get-go that the very basic nature of a human being is evil. He has been taught that it is his first instinct to "sin" or do bad deeds. He has been taught that at his core, he is no better than a depraved animal and the only thing making him better is his faith in this other being who wants to make him good. He has been taught that the only reason he is able to control his base instincts and avoid going out on a rampage of pillaging, raping and murdering is because of he has "let god into his heart". The reason he never even desires to do such things, he is told, is because of the holy spirit he has accepted into his life. And all this the person accepts without question.

Then along comes this atheist who proclaims not to believe in all that mystical mumbo-jumbo. He claims not to follow any god-given moral compass but one made on his own. How is the theist supposed to understand that position? These are concepts he is not equipped to handle because they go against everything he has been ever taught? But wait, maybe the atheist is just giving lip-service to his ideology, all the while following his "god-given moral compass". But no, that's not the case either, since the atheist does go against so many of the religious teachings. So what exactly is stopping him from going against the rest of them? He says his morality is based on humans and not god, but isn't human nature evil and corrupt itself? How then, can anything based on that be good?

That's not to say that this makes their position correct or even acceptable - just understandable.