Why Secular Morality is Superior

[Brunitski]

This statement alone is like a haiku of stupid.

Oh that's good. I think I'll steal it.

gees, at least give me a kudos before you add that to yer sig mate! You banana benders are all the same; me, me, me.

I don't do smilies, but if I did, y'know there'd be a wink there, don't you?

[IATIA]

The belief that we are time + matter + chance doesn't account for the most basic assumptions we take for granted. In this thread it would be morality.

Of course it can. Let us take murder, not self defense, but pure unadulterated premeditated murder. Is that immoral? The majority would agree that it is, so how can we come to this conclusion without your god's help?

Simply. IF the first humans were to ignore morality and just go around killing each other off, one of two things would probably happen.

One. They would eventually kill themselves off before they thrived and a different species arises.

Two. They are the different species and through developing intellect that prompted desires, they also realized that killing each other off would put themselves at risk of extinction.

No god, no book, only survival of the fittest.

[elunico13]

The belief that we are time + matter + chance doesn't account for the most basic assumptions we take for granted. In this thread it would be morality.

Of course it can. Let us take murder, not self defense, but pure unadulterated premeditated murder. Is that immoral? The majority would agree that it is, so how can we come to this conclusion without your god's help?

Simply. IF the first humans were to ignore morality and just go around killing each other off, one of two things would probably happen.

One. They would eventually kill themselves off before they thrived and a different species arises.

Two. They are the different species and through developing intellect that prompted desires, they also realized that killing each other off would put themselves at risk of extinction.

No god, no book, only survival of the fittest.

The answer is on page 1.

The atheist is inconsistent when he/she doesn't randomly kill anyone they don't like.
James Holmes was consistent with the premises of evolution in colorado and arrived at a valid conclusion based on the logic of evolution. Not a sound conclusion though.
Atheists are consistent when supporting abortions or killing unconscience people dependent on others. (genkaus' standard)
They are inconsistent when they consider the feelings of others.

All I get are arbitrary answers that vary between atheists on this forum. I guess we should follow the standard of whoever has the coolest screen name. right?

[frankiej]

The atheist is inconsistent when he/she doesn't randomly kill anyone they don't like.

Are you saying that the only thing stopping you from randomly murdering people is your imaginary friend? You are seriously fucked up! You REALLY need help if that is the case.

[genkaus]

You know what, I've changed my mind and now am convinced that the biblical creation story is the real deal. Only the biblical god could have produced something this moronic. Evolution would never have allowed such stupidity to survive.

The atheist is inconsistent when he/she doesn't randomly kill anyone they don't like.

Only if random killing is a part of his morality.

James Holmes was consistent with the premises of evolution in colorado and arrived at a valid conclusion based on the logic of evolution. Not a sound conclusion though.

That's surprising. Since he wasn't an atheist.

Atheists are consistent when supporting abortions or killing unconscience people dependent on others. (genkaus' standard)

Half-right. Unconscious people aren't actually dependent on others. Therefore, there is no reason to support killing them. Unborn babies on the other hand - go right ahead.

They are inconsistent when they consider the feelings of others.

Only if being inconsiderate is a part of their morality.

All I get are arbitrary answers that vary between atheists on this forum.

That should tell you something - not all atheists follow the same philosophy.

I guess we should follow the standard of whoever has the coolest screen name. right?

No, the one that is most rational. But then, I wouldn't expect you to do that, since you aren't capable of it.

[Ryantology]

His screenname isn't even cool, so that's good.

Also, he still can't answer the question I asked probably a hundred times already.

Guess I win, then.

[IATIA]

All I get are arbitrary answers that vary between atheists on this forum. I guess we should follow the standard of whoever has the coolest screen name. right?

Any group has a plethora of opinions that are similar and dissimilar and not always in agreement. Even god had the problem. Fallen angels anyone?

As atheists, we have not said that there is an absolute moral authority, which is the discussion as I perceive it.

The theists would have us believe there is an absolute morality through god and I say it is survival of the fittest species. Animals seldom go on killing rampages.There are 'rules' within the animal world that allow perpetuation of that species.

The difference between us and the animals is that we write these 'rules' down and call them laws. Sometimes these laws are a result of a majority and sometimes they are a result of a government and sometimes a combination of both and not all of them are good or moral, including laws created by the church and other religions.

Just read the bible if you need proof of immorality from this so-called 'absolute moral authority'!

[John V]

I posted this as a reply in another thread but since this issue comes up all the time, I thought I would reprint the post in its very own thread. Any time theists visit and bring up the moral argument, they can be pointed to this thread.

1. (Perhaps most important) Theistic morality confuses the issues of what morality is and what is moral.

By its nature, religion will be concerned with gaining more followers and gaining increased obedience with its established followers.

The Amish aren’t very concerned with gaining more followers. Christianity requires much less obedience than the Mosaic law. So, no, these things are sometimes present in religion, but not in the nature of religion.

This is why when you read through the Bible or Koran, often what is described as "evil" are such victimless crimes as idolatry, blasphemy and apostasy. Other moral issues and labeled "abominations" have to do with failure to adhere to rituals and traditions, like not working on the Sabbath or not eating certain kinds of food.

Read the 10 commandments if you don't have time to read the whole Bible. You'll notice that the first four, the one's that Yahweh thought of first and foremost, have to do with religious adherence and not real moral issues. A few deal with how we treat others (don't murder, don't steal, etc) but the majority prohibit victimless crimes. This muddying of the waters is not helpful to our understand of what is moral or what morality is.

Having obligations to both god and other people doesn’t muddy things, as you demonstrated yourself by determining which of the ten commandments pertained to god, and which to other people. It’s an easy distinction to make in most cases.

2. Theistic morality provides an "easy out"

When you do wrong in theism, you pray to a god to forgive you or perhaps perform some useless rituals of penance that do nothing to clean up the mess.

Incorrect, at least from a Christian viewpoint.

First note that Christians are subject to secular law.
Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

So for us, it’s not a matter of secular or religious morality. Secular morality is required, with additional requirements of religion.

Second, read the Mosaic law. It required restitution when applicable. It did not just allow a prayer and ritual, as you charge. One example:
Exodus 22
1 If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep.

When you do wrong as a secularist, you apologize to those you've wronged and seek to make direct amends.

Some do, some don’t. As noted, the law required restitution, and Christians are to obey secular law, so they are under at least as much obligation as anyone else.

3. "GodWillsIt" is not an answer

Just as "GodDidIt" doesn't satisfy our curiosity about science, "GodWillsIt" does nothing to help us understand morality. This is an appeal to authority, little better than "Cause I said so".

Compare this with secular morality where things labeled "wrong" or "evil" are activities that involve a victim. Morality can be explained in terms of such useful tools as "the social contract" or in term of our sense of empathy and community. Saying, for example, that slavery is wrong because it violates the rights of others and we would not wish to be treated this way is far more elucidating than "cause big daddy in sky says so".

The Bible doesn’t just say “cause big daddy in sky says so.” Regarding human interactions, it uses the same reasoning you do.
Luke 6
31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.

4. Euthephro's Dilemma

Does GodWillIt because its good or is it good because GodWillsIt?

It’s good because god wills it. I’ve never seen the dilemma.

If things are good in accordance with what GodWills, than this is little more than a might-makes-right system of justice. The rules are just as arbitrary as with any human imposed system. Therefore, GodWillsit wouldn't solve the problems Elunico frets over.

By saying “just as arbitrary as any human imposed system,” you defeat your own point 3, and dent your muddy waters charge of point 1.

Apologists, typical of their style when in a conundrum, try to make it "both and yet neither".

You’re projecting. In one breath, secular morality is better. In the next, they’re equally arbitrary.

5. Read the damn Bible already!

Speak for yourself. You weren’t aware of restitution requirements or the golden rule.

Yahweh can't seem to answer no-brainer moral issues that humans have long since solved. Issues like rape, slavery and genocide are ones that Yahweh can't seem to provide a correct answer to.

When did humans solve the problems of rape, slavery and genocide? While slavery may be down as a percent of population, in raw numbers it’s at an all-time high. And this isn’t just in third-world countries. TGAC recently linked to an article on sex slavery in Germany and other parts of Europe. Yes, Westerners are raping slaves every day, it’s common knowledge, and it’s allowed to go on.

6. Christianity is a dangerous belief system

Any religion that proposes a good god vs. evil devil system is going to demonize any who are not part of the religion. By process of elimination, any who do not serve the defined good god must be in league with or at least duped by the devil. If you believe your enemy is in league with the devil, you are capable of doing anything to him.

Secular nationalism is a dangerous belief system. Any system which defines a group also defines those outside the group, and can be dangerous.

Worse, any religion that proposes a faith-based scheme of salvation is going to push atrocity. After all, if killing a few heathens saves thousands of souls for all eternity, isn't that a good thing. The stakes are as high as they can be if there's a real danger of your children going to Hell for all time. No wonder Christianity has such a violent history.

Can you support that Christianity in particular or theism in general has been a net evil to mankind?

7. Look at the results
Secular societies do not explode into a fireball of mayhem and murder when they lose their religion. Quite to the contrary, social studies have shown that crime rates fall along with teen pregnancy and other social indicators show that secular societies are happier and better adjusted.

OK, show us the results and we’ll look at them.

[Simon Moon]

The atheist is inconsistent when he/she doesn't randomly kill anyone they don't like.

Incorrect.

Humans evolved in groups of 50-150 people where attributes like: kin selection, altruism, cooperation, empathy were necessary for our survival. Humans are social animals. Our survival as a species depended on the above traits.

Our closest cousins, bonobo chimps, exhibit behaviors that could only be described as morality. They: share food even when in short supply, they protect weaker members of their group even if it puts them in danger, they adopt orphaned babies even if it mean a greater burden, they seem to mourn dead members, they punish violent members by ejecting them from the group (to an almost certain death).

Bonobos don't kill anyone randomly they don't like. Why not? What prevents them?

James Holmes was consistent with the premises of evolution in colorado and arrived at a valid conclusion based on the logic of evolution. Not a sound conclusion though.

James Holmes is mentally ill. He did not kill because he was following "the premises of evolution in colorado and arrived at a valid conclusion based on the logic of evolution". If you believe that is the case, you have little or no understanding of evolution.

[John V]