The argument from morality is scary.

[CapnAwesome]

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?

[Mark 13:13]

I haven't seen that argument before or at least not along those lines but I have come across similar sentiment. It sort of leads into a thread I was thinking of starting as soon the other threads i have an input into to die down a bit or I have nothing further to add to them. I was going to come at a similar idea but from the question of if religion/Deity did not exist what exactly would be considered evil and by what criteria would it be judged ( before the word good could be used it would also need to be defined) as you can see I haven't fully thought out the wording but I think that is close to where i was going.

[TaraJo]

I want to know where they got the idea that their holy book is the one telling them not to rape, kill or steal? The Bible is filled with stories where God either orders his people to kill, rape or steal or where he gives regulations on how they're allowed to do those things.

[CapnAwesome]

I haven't seen that argument before or at least not along those lines but I have come across similar sentiment. It sort of leads into a thread I was thinking of starting as soon the other threads i have an input into to die down a bit or I have nothing further to add to them. I was going to come at a similar idea but from the question of if religion/Deity did not exist what exactly would be considered evil and by what criteria would it be judged ( before the word good could be used it would also need to be defined) as you can see I haven't fully thought out the wording but I think that is close to where i was going.

It kind of surprises me that anyone involved in any sort of religious discussion hasn't come across this argument multiple time. I think a huge problem is a lack of understanding of history. The ideas of good and evil have shifted incredibly in the course of human history. This argument is only valid if you think morality hasn't changed. It has. What is evil today was not considered evil 2000 years ago. For example the prophet Muhammad having sex with a 9 year old was common place and not considered immoral in that day and time. If something that we consider as base and immoral as pedophilia can change with time, how can we possibly say we don't have cultural morality?

I find this argument to actually be the reverse of it's intent. The intent is to say we all are born with a scale of right and wrong that comes from god. What it sounds like to me is that we are all born with a desire to do horrible evil things, and your belief is god is the only thing that prevents you from doing that. I reject both of those ideas. They scare me, and don't speak well of those who present them.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I haven't seen that argument before or at least not along those lines but I have come across similar sentiment. It sort of leads into a thread I was thinking of starting as soon the other threads i have an input into to die down a bit or I have nothing further to add to them. I was going to come at a similar idea but from the question of if religion/Deity did not exist what exactly would be considered evil and by what criteria would it be judged ( before the word good could be used it would also need to be defined) as you can see I haven't fully thought out the wording but I think that is close to where i was going.

A few atheists here will disagree with me but from my point of view right now, it's completely arbitrary and subjective. There really isn't anything bad about a mass murderer and there really isn't anything good about charity. You only say those things are good or bad by how well they fulfill your desires. I made a thread recently about this: http://atheistforums.org/thread-16109.html

[Faith No More]

Maybe it's naive of me to think so, but I believe that most of the theists that use this argument are suffering from cognitive dissonance. In order to believe that god is the source of morality they must convince themselves that without god they would have none.

It's a scary argument, but I think that if most of the people that make this argument were to suddenly find themselves in a godless existence, they would find their morality remained intact.

[Mark 13:13]

wow what a long thread and will take me time to read it; and yes teaearlgreyhot your point of view seems to me the ultimate logical outcome of the good/evil question if we take God out of the question. But i will need to read the full tread before i can comment further. The question would of course arise of what sort of society do we become if we all follow this code. ( or maybe are as although many profess religion myself included how many really live up to it) And no Capn I don't think it means we are all born with a scale or that such a scale even if natural would prove or disprove God. And the idea that we need God to prevent us from the evil acts you mention would just be instantly countered with natural selection. Its more a new way of looking at the question if God exists and is good why does He allow evil from another perspective that being if God doesn't exist then what is evil.

[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.

[FallentoReason]

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?

I forgot how I got onto the topic with a Christian friend (when I used to be a Christian too) but he said that he doesn't understand why non-believers "aren't out there having as much sex as possible before they die, because they have nothing more to live for". This actually really scared me, because as you say, the thing keeping him back from acting like this projection of what he thinks a non-believer should be like is the Holey Babble. Maybe this disturbing projection is to do more with the meaning of life, but I have no doubt in my mind that he's just as capable of thinking up of an equally absurd question to do with morality.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

I forgot how I got onto the topic with a Christian friend (when I used to be a Christian too) but he said that he doesn't understand why non-believers "aren't out there having as much sex as possible before they die, because they have nothing more to live for". ...

Who said we aren't?