Posted on 01/27/2005 9:08:45 AM PST by Zyke
If christians use God's laws as a moral compass, what do atheists use to guide their moral belief? How do they know what is right and wrong? Why do they follow any laws at all?
I am just seeking some knowledge to help me understand.
Yes, there are some, but the majority dont. Its not natural.
Off and out now, but do they have to be Atheist, or would you accept any great 'Pagan' societies as valid when set against Christian ones?
Actually, the concept of atheism didn't really take hold until monotheism - for most of the world Christianity - did. Before then people just chose any one of a multitude of gods to follow. Christianity spawned atheism and the two will always be locked together. [Acknowledgements for that idea to STRAW DOGS by John Gray - not Venus/Mars John Gray - an excellent book that I recommend to all]
I'm sorry to say you are wrong. Chickens, even free range chickens, eat their own or other chickens' eggs pretty commonly. They also peck each other to death. Dogs kill each other for fun. Male cats eat their own offspring so often that female cats hide their kittens. Big trout eat little trout. Contrary to Disney, bucks really do try to inflict mortal damage on their opponents and they sometimes do.
The list is endless.
OK, just - .3, .4, .6, .7, .9, .10, .11, .13, .17, .18
.12 looks good.
Surely whatever animals do in the wild is 'natural'?
If you mean not part of the regular cycle of their behavior you are wrong. Many, many species have inter-group and/or inter-generational wars and the dead are often eaten. There is nothing 'natural' about Nature.
Most atheists use their own rational conclusions based on how they think people in society *should* behave. I would argue in many cases, this actually amounts to simply sustaining ethics created by the Judeo-Christian culture in which they have grown.
But, yes, rationalism can on its own, and very independently of religion, produce a set of ethics. The problem is that apart from either a love or God, or fear of punishment from God, those ethics rely on the application of force to keep people obedient to the system.
Sure, I might say, "Woudn't it be NICE if everyone lived this way," but reason dictates that I make exceptions for myself. On the large scale, altruism is beneficial to society as a whole, but imparts no advantage to the individual, other than what society can enforce. Absent that force, those who make personal exceptions to ethics for their own self-interest will be more successful than those who don't.
For large numbers of individuals, personal satisfaction may suffice as the societal pressure towards ethics. But there will always be powerful people for whom granting personal exemptions from ethics represents the ability to do more of what they consider good.
Now, actually, if everyone arrived at the same conclusions as to what goodness was, satisfaction could still function among even the most powerful. But the problem is that most atheists deny that there is an absolute good. There is merely what is good relative to their society. To those who do arrive at that the conclusion that there is SOMETHING which is absolutely good, they usually conclude that that is the ONLY thing which is absolutely good. And from these you get "-isms" which are created by remarkable rational thought, yet simultaneously seem preposterously shallow, such as John Stuart Mills', or Karl Marx's.
There are definitely people who lack a religious experience, who have come to recognize that there exists more objectively, transcendentally good things than they dare try to enumerate, and thus PROMOTE religion, even if they lack faith in the source of the religion. If I understand them properly, such people would include Thomas Jefferson and William F. Buckley, although I may be over-reading Buckley's rhetorical points. But such people usually regard religion well, and would hate to be called atheists.
The most dangerous thought, IMHO, among atheists, is the thought among atheists who simply haven't given a whole lot of thought to ethics. 99.9% of us are "sheeple" on a great deal of things. Anyone who denies that about themselves is simply arrogant, for we must either rely on others who are experts, or on ourselves when we are incapable of discerning the truth about more than one or two subjects which we can intensely study; the human mind is so very limited. Christ recognized our "sheepleness" when he instituted the authority of the Church, to act as our shepherd. ("Peter, pastor my lambs") Thus, a religious sheeple, like Mother Therese, is capable of doing extraordinary good -- as good as her eligion is -- by simply following her religion. An atheist sheeple will only obey those ethics which are sensible to his own reckoning. Unfortunately, since so many pick and choose their own churches these days, or decide which dogmas of the church they choose to follow, most religionists in Western Society operate the same way.
Ayn Rand? Sorry, I read "Atlas Shrugged." Saying "To hell with the world, I got mine" and smiling while the world is destroyed is no way to go through life. She is one sick muthah. Makes the worst of the uber-Calvinist look like a warm fuzzy.
Aristotle fed off Plato's values which were downright theistic. Aristotle failed to establish First Causes of his values apart from Plato, which is why modernists pretty much ignore the poor guy except to trod him out when he serves their purpose.
To relate to my own post, #46, most atheists historically have recognized that tyrranny is the only means of enforcing ethical behavior systemically apart from the love or fear of God. That is why every atheistic society in the modern world has been savagely brutal to the point of approaching genocide. Atheists can be wonderfully kind people; atheistic societies reward the most brutal.
Uh, Jesus changed the rules. Read the story of Him stopping the execution of the adulteress. "Go and sin no more."
Yes, these are both wrong because you have other options unless you wish to argue from a contrived reality where those are (magically?) the only options.
"Thou shalt not murder...
What do you mean by 'knowledge'? By 'understanding'?
Sounds relative to me.
I think atheists tend to be individuals, not forming societies. When you have a group/society, there will be someone that takes charge, and what better way to be in charge, than to have the ear of God?
Ultimately, they each make up their own.
Which ultimately means that nothing really matters.
And one step beyond Plato, is Socrates.
So the most you can say from the example of Plato is that theistic belief is not necessarily a deal-breaker in formulating moral valies.
He can't.
Which are the atheist societies that existed?
Wars?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.