This mentality sort of reaffirms something I was telling a friend once. He has been atheist his whole life, but I was raised Christian. He was asking me what I meant by I "heard" God and the like. I told him that, looking back, I'd describe it as just my conscience. The same way people describe things as a voice telling them to not do a bad thing. It's not a literal voice, more of a feeling in your gut.
If Christians fully believe that is 100% God talking to them, I can sort of get why some might have trouble understanding why atheists aren't all psychopaths. That's being pretty generous though. At least some of them really do seem to believe that, without the threat of damnation, even they themselves would do deplorable things. At least they say they would. I have a hard time believing there are a lot of totally sadistic, hedonistic people that would really change if they became atheists. It usually feels more like a half thought out tough guy persona. Like they encounter a well behaved atheist and don't understand why the atheist isn't doing drugs and having rampant sex, then they say they'd be doing those things if they could.
I'm sure some Christians think this way, I wasn't one of them.
Before waking up, what I struggled with wasn't that atheists had an inner voice just like me, to discern right from wrong;
It was that I didn't understand why they were slaves to their consciences. It seemed reasonable to me that without objective morals, people could rape and murder as much as they want.
I'm now an atheist and now I rape and murder as much as I want (which is none).
don't understand why the atheist isn't doing drugs and having rampant sex,
I would argue that you can do both of those things and still be morally right as long as it's all safe and consenting.
I think that Christians over-estimate how morally bankrupt they would be without Christianity, because they believe that every human is the worst without Jesus. At least that's what they tell me.
I agree that you can do those things and be morally right, I was just using it as an example because the Christians often use it as an example of the types of things they'd be doing if they were allowed to.
Which sort of demonstrates that even while they may not agree or be consciously aware of it, they do have an idea of the type of morals they'd follow if they didn't believe in God. Because that's the example of the thing they'd want to do instead of say, just murdering people, it shows they would likely follow the "golden rule" idea (treat others the way you want to be treated).
I remember towards the end of my belief I sort of viewed it like there are things that are wrong according to my religion (like being gay) and there are things that are universally wrong (like murder). The big difference was that universal wrongs involved harm. I didn't see the harm in being gay (because there is none, lol), so I didn't believe it was something Christians should try to stop non Christians from doing. Yes, I was experiencing a lot of cognitive dissonance lol. This topic basically led to my eventually and final moment of rejecting my belief in God. I could no longer reconcile the idea of a loving, benevolent god with the idea that harmless activities were sin. It all fell apart shortly after. I'd already long been on a shaky foundation of "I think the American Church is bad, but Jesus is good" sort of stance. But it's all interconnected. Once you start to believe some of the stories are metaphors or myths, they all start to become metaphors or myths. If you don't believe in a literal virgin birth and literal resurrection, then the entire divinity and sacrifice of Jesus comes into question. And what did I have left? Nothing.
But my life is so much better now. Nothing has been more freeing than leaving the church and leaving behind the idea of god. Sorry this sort of got big and personal lol. Happy pride.
This argument has bugged me since the early 2000s. The guy who did the McDonalds Super Size Me (somewhat fake, I now understand) documentary got a stupid reality tv show and some dumbass christian (who had to live with a Muslim family for a month) asked the same goddamned question.
He also wondered if the family, while saying prayers in their native language, might be saying something like "death to america." You know, in front of television cameras during the height of our "war on terror." That's how fucking stupid these people are.
They are holding us back. If their fear and hatred couldn't be weaponized, we'd have a much nicer society.
don't forget Christians and Muslims are literally cut from the same cloth - both are pretty much just offshoots of Judaism. Judaism itself is just a random tribal religion (of which there have been countless thousands) that somehow didn't get dropped and forgotten about as humans moved into the modern era. It's frankly weird that over half the world's population belong to one of these Jewish sects (and also a bit funny that there are only a handful of million who follow the OG Jewish religion).
And yes it's frustrating that so many people are so stupid as to base their lives around something that collapses under the slightest objective scrutiny, and probably not surprising that a not-insignificant number of them want to literally kill followers of all the other offshoots.
The problem is, there is inherent human need not to think. Some need it more, some need it less.
If tonight some magical device removes religion from all of history, we will simply find out whet other idea will those people latch unto. Would it be nationalism? Would it be cult of personality? Perhaps trusting only single media group, or discarding any research paper not done by "racially pure" group? Would they claim "how can we trust foreigners? if they do not follow our leader, they cannot be moral, right?"
Though I do wonder if things would be even worse if those people didn't have religion claiming there's external punishment or reward if they control themselves a bit.
Though when Christianity tried to resolve the "if I cross the line into eternal damnation then I might as well do whatever I want after that" problem by saying they can repent, it opened up a "do whatever you want and then repent" loophole, so it could do as much to make people think they can get away with shit, especially when combined with a strong belief that the afterlife will be better.
Also, I think the shitiness is ingrained deep in our species, hell in most species. The reality is that strategic betrayal has always been the optimal solution to the prisoner dilemma, and while real world versions of it continue after that betrayal, I'd bet a high portion of historic animal ones involved the one intending to be nice or trusting not surviving, so I'd guess that survival of the fittest has a bias towards opportunistic assholes.
I’ve always hated this question, because christians like the guy in the picture don’t draw their morality from the bible. They decide on their moral framework, then read the bible to find verses that support it. I don’t see anyone adhering to the mixed thread fabrics rule.
I never buy blended fabrics. I didn't take much else from the bible except for the rule on blended fabrics, and the verse about a bear that mauled 42 boys for mocking a bald guy. These are the only lessons I live by.
That section is weird cross between fetish erotica and hate porn:
"That faithless country is like a woman that... does depraved things. Things like, uh, what's the most depraved I can come up with? IDK, donkey dick? I'm sure really lusty women like donkey dick. So this faithless woman just really, really enjoys donkey dick. And jizz, loads of jizz. Love that- I mean, she loves that. Not me. I'm severely disgusted by the vivid image of her just going to town on that big, nice-
Shit, gotta rewrite the page. Maybe keep it less graphic so I can actually finish writing it. Anyway, yeah, such a dirty woman.
Yes, but, the scary part is that they don't think they're doing that! They've looked into the Tome of Ambiguous Stories and come out of it with whichever outcomes fit their fancy, but whichever Rorschach Lesson they learn, it carries with it the seal of Word of God.
So they can read the book (or have it read to them), come to a conclusion that vibes right, and then believe they were told that lesson by an infallible, ineffable, authority figure. One who can't refute their claimed charge.
There can be no debate with somebody who believes that truth is derived entirely from the interpreted vibes of an apparently unfathomable entity. You can justify anything as long as you know it's coming from an ultimate authority.
Most "good choices" and "bad choices" are fairly easy to figure out. Would you want this thing done to you? If no, then do not do that thing. That's going to cover the vast majority of cases.
There are some exceptions. Sometimes one might need to balance the needs of the many against the needs of the few. Sometimes one might be presented with a set of all-bad options. Those situations are vanishingly rare, and usually limited to circumstances where group consensus can help one determine which choice is acceptable to the greatest number.
But it's not always easy, and it's not always clear. I actually had a version of this conversation at a wedding with a guy who had his master's degree in philosophy and another guy who was a devout Christian who was suffering a profound crisis of faith because his toddler nephew had just died of a brain aneurism.
The crisis-experiencing Christian asked me "Isn't it scary when there aren't clear answers?"
And my answer was "Yes, frequently. I often wish that there was an obvious or comforting answer to the terrifying conundrums of reality. But there often isn't, and it's my job as an adult to figure out what to do in those situations. Work out the moral calculus of what kind of world I want to create, try to work towards that world, and try to cope when reality won't cooperate in the ways that I wish it would."
Sometimes it's a cold universe out there, and you've got to build yourself a fire out of coherent philosophy to get through the night. Relying on dogma is a lot like a shot of brandy; it might make you feel warm for a while, but eventually the cold will get to you, and you've got to have that sustaining fire or else you're going to freeze to death.
I had a guy I worked with ask me “ if you don’t believe in god whats stopping you from raping and murdering people?” I said “because I don’t want to do any of those things” I definitely looked at that dude weird after that
I agree with Penn, but I can't help but think that if I was given a Death Note, I would feel morally obligated to write quite a few names in it. Names of people who are personally responsible for a great amount of suffering in the world.
It's not that I want to kill people. It's that if I had a guaranteed way of stopping these people with no personal risk, I would feel obligated to do so, even if it meant killing them.
Someone make a spin of that old capitalist mindset meme with the button "press to get 1 million bucks but a random person dies" and they spam the shit out of it. But now it's you (and me) hammering away at that "you get nothing but a random billionaire or pedophile dies" buzzer.
It's from Futurama. These are aliens who live 1,000 light-years from Earth, and therefore get broadcasts from Earth 1,000 years after they air.
The full line being shown here is, "This is ancient Earth's most foolish program. Why does Ross, the largest Friend, not simply eat the other five?" to which the other alien replies, "Perhaps they are saving that for sweeps."
I've been trying to reframe things like this in my mind.
Instead of contemplating if the world would be better if they were gone, I tell myself that my wish would be for them to just be a good person.
I'm not trying to be righteous. But I think, framed like that, a good person would choose the latter. And if it really came down the power to disappear somebody, I think most people would err on the side of good.
But retribution and vengeance are strong in our lizard brains.
Ya if you kill muskrat then someone else fills his place. Instead, if we’re talking magic, let him become a truly generous and benevolent person and spend his wealth recreating our economy to solve world hunger or some such thing
It’s that if I had a guaranteed way of stopping these people with no personal risk, I would feel obligated to do so
I understand the impulse. But I might also posit that an individual with the power to kill with impunity will quickly become a tool of national media and demagoguery. We're seeing this play out in the age of Trump, with people like Laura Loomer and Steven Miller whispering in his ear to devastating consequence.
Anyone who claims they'd be more clear-eyed, more level-headed, and more rational need only go back a president or two to Joe Biden (genocide in Gaza) and Barack Obama (drone striker in chief, from Libya to Afghanistan). You're going to have a modern day Allen Dulles on your shoulder, telling you all about how you're going to be greeted as a Liberator once you put down the pen. And you're going to kill a whole lot of people for reasons that make you feel good, but end up doing a lot of evil.
If nothing else, consider how many folks in NATO countries would have - if given the Death Note - immediately scribbled the names of a dozen world leaders from rival countries? And then a dozen political leaders from rival parties? And then a dozen national celebrities and media figures with rival ideologies? And then what would the consequences of this be? Did Iranian government become better when Khomanie's name ended up in the book?
FFS, they explore this in the Anime. Light ends up killing a lot of good people simply because he's personally resentful or fearful of being caught.
They didn't say that people like that shouldn't have consequences, drastic and significant ones, but they may disagree with the specifics.
Additionally, raping and murdering is what the quote is saying is wrong. The original quote does not state an opinion on using death as a penalty for these acts. For such a consequence, one could argue that it is necessary to distinguish murder and capital punishment as two separate acts, with the latter being justified.
Finally, the quote is meant to point out to most people that regardless of their religious beliefs, they have a moral compass that is not contingent on their religious beliefs and that most people's compass will generally point in similar directions. One could then conclude that religion is not required to know right from wrong.
I agree with you, but it's assuming the justice system functions. What happens when it no longer punishes those who need punished most?
Edit: original with horrible typos for posterity: I agree with you, but it's assuming the justice system functions. What happens when it ninkonger ounushes those who need ounished most?
I suppose you're right, for people that believe in "justice" administered by state. As an anarchist, I view states as fictional entities, like fiat currency, they're not real (tho can have real effects), and are therefore not entitled to kill or imprison anyone for any reason, let alone to maintain order as they see it.
Also, wanting to kill and feeling the need to kill, such as in self-defense are different too.
I certainly do not trust the state's justice, therefore I can't trust them to execute someone even if we entertain he idea that executing someone is justified.
I’ve found that a lot of that finds its roots in their absolutism about everything.
Humankind is absolutely wicked, god loves us endlessly, afterlife is for eternity, hell is beyond imaginable punishment, also forever, if you’ve looked at a woman you’ve already committed adultery,…
Always the thing pushed to its utmost extreme.
Leaving very little wiggle room or nuance. And I think that’s by design. These people get pushed (under threat of eternal punishment) and brainwashed to spread their ideology which is very hard because it’s batshit, so they have pre-emptively hype up their argument. Again, drive it to its formulaic extreme. Otherwise none of this gets even less of a chance to land.
Don't forget to reject and demonize the very thing that could help break that cycle: doubt. When everything else is so absolute, doubt is complete anathema. I've never met a person more sure of the world and their place in it than a devout Catholic.
I helped out a random stranger the other day.
Not gonna tell the long story but
He kept saying God must have guided me and God must be looking out for me too.
I didn't want to get into with him but
No bro.
I helped you because I saw you needed help. And figured I was in a position to do so. I had some extra time that day and just happened to be where you were.
Wasn't God.
I help people when I can because why not ? The relief on someone's face is enough payment. Plus I feel guilty when I don't help when I can. Not from fear of damnation but my empathy requires I do something.
Strangers have helped me in the past. I know how much of a difference that can make.
It's just frustrating to have your own "good" behaviors constantly assumed to be caused by God.
No. I chose to help. Me. No one else was involved.
Isn't that a better lesson anyway? That there are people who help from a place of support rather than fear of judgement. ? Or some divine force ?
Our sense of morals are adaptive and mutable, for good and ill. I have definitely done dumb stuff without thinking in the past, I have done the wrong thing with the best and worst of intentions, I try to learn from it and become a better person.
Also, I do not have some paternal permission slip of a god who will absolve me of my wrong doings, I have to live with everything I do, good and bad, it's a pretty powerful incentive to do better and to seek professional help when needed.
Not really. An atheists sense of morality is just based on the society they grew up in instead of the religion they were indoctrinated with. But that morality isn't absolute, it changes a lot depending on your circumstances and way of life and everyone's a bit different in that regard.
My favorite answer is a question: So without God, you would murder, rape and steal? No? Well, then it seems to me you don't need God to know what is morally correct.
I already commit all the rapes and thefts I want to commit. 0. If you actually want to rape/steal than you're probably too far gone for Christ's forgiveness anyways.
If you actually want to rape/steal than you're probably too far gone for Christ's forgiveness anyways.
Actually, at least in scripture, facing and resisting temptation is a virtue. There is a whole story about Jesus going into the desert to expose himself to the devil's temptation just to flex his morally superior willpower.
On a Christian blues album I listened to as a kid, there was also a song ("Fireproof", I think?) that has the devil tempt the narrator in various ways, with the result always being "Ain't no way, devil: I've been washed in the blood of the lamb. Ain't no use, I'm fireproof."
It's a whole theme. In the flavour I grew up with, there was this undercurrent of "we're constantly fighting a spiritual war", so facing temptation was a battle, and defying it a victory in that war.
Of course, that encouraged talking up the severity of the temptation you faced to make your victory look even greater, Caesar style: "Look at this strong, vicious adversary that the superior Roman Legions (under my command) overcame!" I'd credit that parish with many things, but excessive honesty is not among them.
Yeah a decent amount would. Even more would say no but do it anyways... Even back in the days when everyone believed they were eternally damned if they killed someone or worse.
If you need the threat of eternal punishment to be a good person, then you are not a good person.
This argument is the same that Kant made. Kant defended the notion that a person should do the correct thing for the sole reason that it is the correct thing.
Okay, but the assumption of correctness is a consequence of accrued education and experience.
What is the correct response to being slapped? Do you return in kind? Do you kill the perpetrator to restore your honor? Do you turn the other cheek? Do you call the police? Do you bluster, remain stoic, or cry out in pain? Do you apologize or argue? Do you stand your ground, advance, or flee? What is the correct action? There are a dozen different answers.
The premise of a Biblical Law (and, really, all laws and customs) is to establish a single assumed acceptable response. And the real threat of failing to follow this law isn't "eternal damnation" (an idea that wasn't really even canonical until the turn of the millennium) but social ostracism and legal reprisal.
The existence of a consequence also doesn't establish whether or not you're a good person. The purpose of consequences is to encourage good conduct. You follow the rules because you believe they are righteous. And you enforce the rules because you believe they are righteous. You recognize goodness of a general public as a predicate for social safety and economic prosperity. And you hold to an "eternal reward/punishment" as a consequence that goes above any individual actor's failure to identify or prosecute bad behavior, because you see the net consequence of bad conduct in the aggregate as a kind-of Hell On Earth for the rest of your people.
That's why Hobbes and Locke and even Machiavelli posit a better rationale for virtuous conduct than Kant. They see past the "honor system" and recognize the real macro consequences. Societies that fail to meet some basic standards of decency devolve into miserable, violent slums and cultish backwaters. They are damned in life long before they face a judgement after death.
I think this is also why there's more "criminality" in opressed communities. Why would I work or sacrifice to uphold a system that is unfair to me? If I don't believe in it, if I don't see benefit from it, why should I attach my own ethics to it?
I agree with the first person about morality determining how to respond socially. For example, why is killing someone in self defense necessary? Why shouldn't you just run? Responding to violence with violence could be bad if someone else thinks that you weren't in enough legitimate danger. Similarly, is it ok to kill if you are protecting someone else? What if the person you were protecting did not feel that killing was necessary?
I don't believe that you are picking up what I'm putting down. Why shouldn't you die instead? Why do we consider it understandable to defend yourself to the death? Obviously it is because we value lives more than whatever the other person wants that drives them to attack someone, but there isn't a strict reason for that beyond social acceptance. We could just as easy decide, as a society, that those who can't defend themselves should be culled. Or that murder is so incomprehensible that there is no reason to consider it.
Murder and death are obviously extreme examples, but you work that idea forward to charity, politeness, and social contract to yield to a government authority.
Regardless, ancient scripture is no foundation for morality. It's simply what people came up with thousands of years ago before moral foundations got properly built. It took all that time to develop because tradition held humanity back.
I didn't downvote the other person... but isn't it kind of a disagree button? What are the buttons for, if not to vote up the things you like, down the things you don't, and thus float the "best" to the top?
I guess one can respectfully disagree, given that we're kinda debating philosophy, or one can structurally disagree, and maybe those result in different kinds of voting behaviour.
It is astonishing how difficult it can be for some religious people to understand basic concepts of "don't be an asshole" without religion.
I talked to a muslim woman once, who asked if I was not afraid that my then girlfriend would cheat on me, because we both weren't religious. She basically said if you're afraid of a godly punishment then you can find trust and peace in a relationship.
I plainly answered that you do not need fear of any god to be considerate and careful with someone. Nor does this necessitate morals. And if she would betray me, then she simply would be an asshole and not the right person for me.
It went back and forth like this for a while, because she seems to have been astonished that people can have happy relationships built on mutual trust without fearing magical sky people.
I've thought about this a lot actually, but I figured it out. So when you're presented with a good choice and a bad choice, you go for the good one. Works every time.
In-groups and out-groups, that's how it's "so hard".
We all have empathy and sympathy for our in-group. When it comes to basic respect, many of us have large in-groups that include the less fortunate, animals, etc, other's have a small in-group with themselves and their family, or their race, or their class. For the worst people, the in-group is themselves and maybe their children who can carry their legacy.
There is both a nature and nurture aspect to empathy, like most of our behaviors. Even toddlers share some things and gain enjoyment from it without prompting even if they are 'selfish' with most things.
This is the distinction between empathy and sympathy. Sympathy is a far older word and a synonym of compassion and what you describe in your comment. Empathy is a concept from aesthetics and psychology, though, (actually derived from the German Einfühlung circa 1909) and is really an intellectual activity. Real empathy is, indeed, taught.
If you want to learn more about empathy I can highly recommend Theodor Lipp's Leitfaden der Psychologie (a work of philosophy, not psychology as the title would suggest): Internet Archive [German].
Sources:
Lipps, Theodor, 1851-1914. Leitfaden Der Psychologie / Von Theodor Lipps. 3. teilweise umgearbeitete Aufl. Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1909.
I already commented on this in this thread, but describing the concept of something and the something existing are two different things.
The concept of empathy was first introduced by aestheticians in the mid-19th century. They used the German word “Einfühlung” to describe the emotional “knowing” of a work of art from within, by feeling an emotional resonance with the work of art.
Sliced bread also wasn’t sold in stores until the 20th century, but people were slicing bread long long before that. People have been experiencing empathy since before we were homo sapians.
Prosocial behaviors have many origins and its multi factorial, the interplay between them are complicated. But it’s not like the feeling of empathy isn’t part of our genetic make up.
Fascinating article, it was a pleasure to read! I learned something new, certainly. I am otherwise only familiar with empathy from philosophy.
The other thing you refer to – concept vs. actual reality, if I understand you correctly – is, of course, a very valid and big debate in linguistics; prescriptive definitions vs. descriptive definitions. That is why I linked the OED, since it is a historical dictionary. Or do you mean philosophical concept vs. physical reality?
My comment was about that prescriptive, philosophical definition of the word. But the study you link shows that empathy is, indeed, much bigger than that.
Really I didn't want to criticize the person I replied to, though – just share the origin of empathy (the word). But thank you for providing a far more detailed explanation of what it actually is!
I'm really struggling to wrap my head around it being a learned skill because it feels like second nature to me. Sometimes to my own detriment. But maybe that's because it's pretty common for ADHD folk to have high empathy.
Everyone needs to be in a safe environment and have someone teach them empathetic.
Not understanding that, especially if you were lucky enough to be safe and have someone teach you...
Is a million times worse. And usually just means you're not really empathetic, just a veneer of it.
If someone is actually empathetic, they don't need to ask rheyorical questions about why some people have zero empathy.
That's literally what empathy is, which I honestly think might be the root of your confusion. You don't know what the actual word even means, you're just going off how others use it without understanding it.
Doctor Viktor Frankl and the entire field of logo therapy would disagree with you. Part of our entire motivation for life is finding meaning, empathy is one of the more basic ways we help ourselves find that meaning. Evolutionarily speaking altruism is pretty beneficial for members of a social species such as us.
Most humans are naturally empathetic, and it’s such a core feature that nothing can strip that away from them
And you say "neuroscientist" because that sounds modern, but guy was in his late 30s during WW2, neuroscience was barely a thing back then.
No one cares about quack cults.
Edit:
Like, literally most cults are built off that. A charismatic person has delusions while going thru something unspeakable, and people inspired by the leaders survival (even if by luck) just believe whatever rationalizations the leader says.
Do you actually believe that shit or did you just do a lazy Google and fall for it at a glance?
Can you give more fucks and in the right direction?
The concept of empathy was first introduced by aestheticians in the mid-19th century. They used the German word “Einfühlung” to describe the emotional “knowing” of a work of art from within, by feeling an emotional resonance with the work of art.
Just because the concept was talked about as Empathy in the 19th century by some German scientists doesn’t mean shit about the actual concepts integration in our species.
Sliced bread also wasn’t sold in stores until the 20th century, but people were slicing bread long long before that.
From your article:
In the past, empathy was considered an inborn trait that could not be taught, but research has shown that this vital human competency is mutable and can be taught to health-care providers
I never said anything about the ability to develop or not develop empathy later in life. I said it’s mostly a natural trait. There are many reason for prosocial behaviors, and it’s mailability varies from nature to nurture.
The man had a doctorate from the University of Vienna, and was a practicing psychiatrist for several years before WW2. Look up his work at Steinhof Psychiatric Hosptial in the years prior to World War II. He saw thousands of patients in a clinical setting, and continue on the form theories. I don’t care about your opinions of his field or not.
I never referred to him as a neuroscientist, and I didn’t disagree that empathy could be also taught in some way.
So have fun making up imaginary arguments to try and defeat.
Actually, applying a dogma is not being a good jew/christian/muslim. Theologists justify almost everything in "God let us choose between Good and Evil". Ironically, their is many learning in the thora/bible/quran that underline the need to not being dogmatic
Intelligence helps you understand how certain choices affect you in the long-term, and morality tends to align with long-term self interest. It makes sense people with low intelligence tend to appeal to an authority to derive their morality.
I would put myself in that situation see how would I feel. If I feel hurt then it is likely bad, if I feel happy then it is probably good. This is without any bible or laws governing us. If we include laws then I would adjust a bit when it's good/bad is it illegal? TLDR: Empathy and Civic duty
I get that the tweeter wanted to just blast on religious folks, but it makes them look like they don’t have an answer.
How one determines right from wrong is a pretty interesting question with a whole lot of guess work and gut feelings for most folks, regardless of faith.
A lot of philosophers, religious or otherwise, have spilled a lot of ink on the topic.
“Threat of eternal punishment “ doesn’t help you figure out right from wrong, just the consequences of choosing “wrong.”
Pretty much. They're going for the pithy, stolen witticism about 'why' rather than the 'how' the bald guy posted. People who care more about getting the dunk on 'bad' people than helping them understand are just being selfish.
Instead of how do they choose, the real question for an atheist is "how do they know what is good and what is evil?" With no ultimate moral authority or guideline, it can be difficult.
I don't think most religious people do good out of a fear of divine retribution, but instead they do good as a reflection of the God that they worship.
Either way, straw man arguments don't make progress in the discourse and only serve to divide.
The good vs evil idea, phrased that way, is a trap. All the bullshit about idolatry and worshipping the wrong gods and whatever else is not objective evil, it's subjective evil based on your rules. So if you ask "how do you know what I think is evil?" the question makes no sense.
In the way that I think you mean it I would say that such a thing doesn't exist in a way that is meaningful. On the first place, we would have to agree what "objective evil" even means, but if it's "the thing that powers the mystical sorting hat of souls" then the discussion is not getting off the ground.
In a more conversational/lexical way where we agree that good" is, well, good, and "evil" is bad I would say that the question posed doesn't really make sense. It's like saying "what temperature is objectively hot" which I could only say is either relative or subjective.
I don't think anybody needs a guide for that discussion, the part you could want a guide for is "what does it mean to me" but only insofar as you want to paint it magically / supernaturally with some greater implication.
So without the "magic sorting hat" telling us what's objectively good and bad, how does one navigate making the decisions?
I've found my own heart trying to rationalize actions that were retrospectively bad ones. Most "bad" people don't think of themselves as bad. This is a quandary I've found myself in, and I'm not sure humans have a good answer to this aside from the theological one.
It's all a question of framing and goals I suppose.
If it is your position that there is an absolute right being who knows objective standards of good and evil (whatever those words mean to it) and you must do those things to... 🤷. The answer is get to heaven I guess, because you want to go there for some reason to celebrate the supreme being for time without end, then I suppose that's what you've got to do.
If your position is more that there is absolute right and wrong and that by getting these from a god you will have better relationships, or more fulfilled life, or make more money or whatever if you pursue them then ok I guess. That seems to be a little naive. In the first place you will act imperfectly no matter what, and in the second place, you can measure directly against the outcomes you want. For example there are cultural norms, social norms, financial theory, etc.
I am sure there are far more cases philosophically speaking, but a solid argument is in your own comment: if you are TRYING to do good and make the best choices you can, then look back and realize they could be better, it means YOU GOT BETTER. From the standpoint that all of us are imperfect, the best we can do is improve the most we can in the direction we want. If your direction of choice is that one aligned to theology, then yeah I guess there's your answer. I, for one, want to do all the good person stuff from option 2 above for my earthly benefit. Assessing the relative goodness of options is all that is necessary for that, and society does the rest.
I can't predict what comes after with absolute certainty, but the idea that "I don't know absolute right answers" is not sufficient to poof a god argument into existence and to the top of the pile.
Edit: Incidentally, the first perspective up there is the framing for the post itself. If you don't go around killing people just because it's a rule and you want to get your treats, that sounds like sociopathy and be disqualifying from the colloquial use of "good person". It's like "well I would stomp that kitten, but Mom says if I stomp kittens I have to go to bed early" which is totally wild. As though if your mom didn't punish you, you'd just go kitten stomping for fun.
Atheists aren't one cohesive group, so there is no single answer. Atheists can be humanists or utilitarianists or any other (un)defined ideology they choose.
It's not like Christians all hold the same beliefs or moral framework. Some Christians think love is love, while others want to kill queer people. Which one is God's will? How do they know for sure?
At least the atheist takes responsibility for their own morality. Christians either interpret the Bible through their own confirmation bias or, even scarier, they are given their morality by a church leader.
Atheists use whatever their morality tells them they should do. There's a complex interplay of empathy, conscience, whatever moral codes they've picked up from their family, their education, and/or society at large. Hopefully, it's all informed by logic and reason, but just like everything else we do it's driven by emotion.
Step one: don't be a dumbass.
Step two: don't seek advice from a mentally ill person who thinks the voices in their head are an angel/god/space aliens
This mentality sort of reaffirms something I was telling a friend once. He has been atheist his whole life, but I was raised Christian. He was asking me what I meant by I "heard" God and the like. I told him that, looking back, I'd describe it as just my conscience. The same way people describe things as a voice telling them to not do a bad thing. It's not a literal voice, more of a feeling in your gut.
If Christians fully believe that is 100% God talking to them, I can sort of get why some might have trouble understanding why atheists aren't all psychopaths. That's being pretty generous though. At least some of them really do seem to believe that, without the threat of damnation, even they themselves would do deplorable things. At least they say they would. I have a hard time believing there are a lot of totally sadistic, hedonistic people that would really change if they became atheists. It usually feels more like a half thought out tough guy persona. Like they encounter a well behaved atheist and don't understand why the atheist isn't doing drugs and having rampant sex, then they say they'd be doing those things if they could.
I'm sure some Christians think this way, I wasn't one of them.
Before waking up, what I struggled with wasn't that atheists had an inner voice just like me, to discern right from wrong;
It was that I didn't understand why they were slaves to their consciences. It seemed reasonable to me that without objective morals, people could rape and murder as much as they want.
I'm now an atheist and now I rape and murder as much as I want (which is none).
I would argue that you can do both of those things and still be morally right as long as it's all safe and consenting.
I think that Christians over-estimate how morally bankrupt they would be without Christianity, because they believe that every human is the worst without Jesus. At least that's what they tell me.
I agree that you can do those things and be morally right, I was just using it as an example because the Christians often use it as an example of the types of things they'd be doing if they were allowed to.
Which sort of demonstrates that even while they may not agree or be consciously aware of it, they do have an idea of the type of morals they'd follow if they didn't believe in God. Because that's the example of the thing they'd want to do instead of say, just murdering people, it shows they would likely follow the "golden rule" idea (treat others the way you want to be treated).
I remember towards the end of my belief I sort of viewed it like there are things that are wrong according to my religion (like being gay) and there are things that are universally wrong (like murder). The big difference was that universal wrongs involved harm. I didn't see the harm in being gay (because there is none, lol), so I didn't believe it was something Christians should try to stop non Christians from doing. Yes, I was experiencing a lot of cognitive dissonance lol. This topic basically led to my eventually and final moment of rejecting my belief in God. I could no longer reconcile the idea of a loving, benevolent god with the idea that harmless activities were sin. It all fell apart shortly after. I'd already long been on a shaky foundation of "I think the American Church is bad, but Jesus is good" sort of stance. But it's all interconnected. Once you start to believe some of the stories are metaphors or myths, they all start to become metaphors or myths. If you don't believe in a literal virgin birth and literal resurrection, then the entire divinity and sacrifice of Jesus comes into question. And what did I have left? Nothing.
But my life is so much better now. Nothing has been more freeing than leaving the church and leaving behind the idea of god. Sorry this sort of got big and personal lol. Happy pride.
This argument has bugged me since the early 2000s. The guy who did the McDonalds Super Size Me (somewhat fake, I now understand) documentary got a stupid reality tv show and some dumbass christian (who had to live with a Muslim family for a month) asked the same goddamned question.
He also wondered if the family, while saying prayers in their native language, might be saying something like "death to america." You know, in front of television cameras during the height of our "war on terror." That's how fucking stupid these people are.
They are holding us back. If their fear and hatred couldn't be weaponized, we'd have a much nicer society.
don't forget Christians and Muslims are literally cut from the same cloth - both are pretty much just offshoots of Judaism. Judaism itself is just a random tribal religion (of which there have been countless thousands) that somehow didn't get dropped and forgotten about as humans moved into the modern era. It's frankly weird that over half the world's population belong to one of these Jewish sects (and also a bit funny that there are only a handful of million who follow the OG Jewish religion).
And yes it's frustrating that so many people are so stupid as to base their lives around something that collapses under the slightest objective scrutiny, and probably not surprising that a not-insignificant number of them want to literally kill followers of all the other offshoots.
The problem is, there is inherent human need not to think. Some need it more, some need it less.
If tonight some magical device removes religion from all of history, we will simply find out whet other idea will those people latch unto. Would it be nationalism? Would it be cult of personality? Perhaps trusting only single media group, or discarding any research paper not done by "racially pure" group? Would they claim "how can we trust foreigners? if they do not follow our leader, they cannot be moral, right?"
Though I do wonder if things would be even worse if those people didn't have religion claiming there's external punishment or reward if they control themselves a bit.
Though when Christianity tried to resolve the "if I cross the line into eternal damnation then I might as well do whatever I want after that" problem by saying they can repent, it opened up a "do whatever you want and then repent" loophole, so it could do as much to make people think they can get away with shit, especially when combined with a strong belief that the afterlife will be better.
Also, I think the shitiness is ingrained deep in our species, hell in most species. The reality is that strategic betrayal has always been the optimal solution to the prisoner dilemma, and while real world versions of it continue after that betrayal, I'd bet a high portion of historic animal ones involved the one intending to be nice or trusting not surviving, so I'd guess that survival of the fittest has a bias towards opportunistic assholes.
I’ve always hated this question, because christians like the guy in the picture don’t draw their morality from the bible. They decide on their moral framework, then read the bible to find verses that support it. I don’t see anyone adhering to the mixed thread fabrics rule.
I never buy blended fabrics. I didn't take much else from the bible except for the rule on blended fabrics, and the verse about a bear that mauled 42 boys for mocking a bald guy. These are the only lessons I live by.
Ezekiel 23:20 is my daily affirmation
Lol. TIL there's a bible verse about horse jizz.
That section is weird cross between fetish erotica and hate porn:
"That faithless country is like a woman that... does depraved things. Things like, uh, what's the most depraved I can come up with? IDK, donkey dick? I'm sure really lusty women like donkey dick. So this faithless woman just really, really enjoys donkey dick. And jizz, loads of jizz. Love that- I mean, she loves that. Not me. I'm severely disgusted by the vivid image of her just going to town on that big, nice-
Shit, gotta rewrite the page. Maybe keep it less graphic so I can actually finish writing it. Anyway, yeah, such a dirty woman.
What was I writing about anyway?"
A radical new take on religion, I dig it.
At least I know why they're anti-gay now.
Yes, but, the scary part is that they don't think they're doing that! They've looked into the Tome of Ambiguous Stories and come out of it with whichever outcomes fit their fancy, but whichever Rorschach Lesson they learn, it carries with it the seal of Word of God.
So they can read the book (or have it read to them), come to a conclusion that vibes right, and then believe they were told that lesson by an infallible, ineffable, authority figure. One who can't refute their claimed charge.
Not a great position to debate from.
There can be no debate with somebody who believes that truth is derived entirely from the interpreted vibes of an apparently unfathomable entity. You can justify anything as long as you know it's coming from an ultimate authority.
So vibe-coding, but for religion. Makes sense.
I'll entertain the spirit of the question.
Most "good choices" and "bad choices" are fairly easy to figure out. Would you want this thing done to you? If no, then do not do that thing. That's going to cover the vast majority of cases.
There are some exceptions. Sometimes one might need to balance the needs of the many against the needs of the few. Sometimes one might be presented with a set of all-bad options. Those situations are vanishingly rare, and usually limited to circumstances where group consensus can help one determine which choice is acceptable to the greatest number.
But it's not always easy, and it's not always clear. I actually had a version of this conversation at a wedding with a guy who had his master's degree in philosophy and another guy who was a devout Christian who was suffering a profound crisis of faith because his toddler nephew had just died of a brain aneurism.
The crisis-experiencing Christian asked me "Isn't it scary when there aren't clear answers?"
And my answer was "Yes, frequently. I often wish that there was an obvious or comforting answer to the terrifying conundrums of reality. But there often isn't, and it's my job as an adult to figure out what to do in those situations. Work out the moral calculus of what kind of world I want to create, try to work towards that world, and try to cope when reality won't cooperate in the ways that I wish it would."
Sometimes it's a cold universe out there, and you've got to build yourself a fire out of coherent philosophy to get through the night. Relying on dogma is a lot like a shot of brandy; it might make you feel warm for a while, but eventually the cold will get to you, and you've got to have that sustaining fire or else you're going to freeze to death.
I had a guy I worked with ask me “ if you don’t believe in god whats stopping you from raping and murdering people?” I said “because I don’t want to do any of those things” I definitely looked at that dude weird after that
"Nothing, do you have a sister? Where does she live?"
I am a natural born asshole and don't think debating with the religiously impaired is a useful exercise.
I love what Penn Jillette has to say on the subject:
I HAVE ALREADY KILLED AND RAPED EVERY SINGLE PERSON I ACTUALLY WANT TO KILL AND RAPE.
The number of my victims is ZERO, and if your number is not zero you are sick and should be kept away from society.
I agree with Penn, but I can't help but think that if I was given a Death Note, I would feel morally obligated to write quite a few names in it. Names of people who are personally responsible for a great amount of suffering in the world.
It's not that I want to kill people. It's that if I had a guaranteed way of stopping these people with no personal risk, I would feel obligated to do so, even if it meant killing them.
Someone make a spin of that old capitalist mindset meme with the button "press to get 1 million bucks but a random person dies" and they spam the shit out of it. But now it's you (and me) hammering away at that "you get nothing but a random billionaire or pedophile dies" buzzer.
Turn on the news and start slamming the button until i see what i want
What was Ross supposed to do? Sorry I'm not a fan of the Simpsons so I didn't get the reference
You mean the Sampsons?
Don't look at me like that Stan Smith from American dad.
It's from Futurama. These are aliens who live 1,000 light-years from Earth, and therefore get broadcasts from Earth 1,000 years after they air.
The full line being shown here is, "This is ancient Earth's most foolish program. Why does Ross, the largest Friend, not simply eat the other five?" to which the other alien replies, "Perhaps they are saving that for sweeps."
I think he should of handled it by hiring a single female lawyer...
Killing in defense of innocent people is morally upright nearly without question, so you’d be clean either way.
But I’m with you that if I had a death note things would he different.
That’s kind of the second part, about removing them from society. Death is one mechanism for achieving that.
I've been trying to reframe things like this in my mind.
Instead of contemplating if the world would be better if they were gone, I tell myself that my wish would be for them to just be a good person.
I'm not trying to be righteous. But I think, framed like that, a good person would choose the latter. And if it really came down the power to disappear somebody, I think most people would err on the side of good.
But retribution and vengeance are strong in our lizard brains.
Ya if you kill muskrat then someone else fills his place. Instead, if we’re talking magic, let him become a truly generous and benevolent person and spend his wealth recreating our economy to solve world hunger or some such thing
Fair. But different than "wanting to kill" someone. You want to remove harm. Like the whole purpose of prison, leper colonies, community shaming, etc
I understand the impulse. But I might also posit that an individual with the power to kill with impunity will quickly become a tool of national media and demagoguery. We're seeing this play out in the age of Trump, with people like Laura Loomer and Steven Miller whispering in his ear to devastating consequence.
Anyone who claims they'd be more clear-eyed, more level-headed, and more rational need only go back a president or two to Joe Biden (genocide in Gaza) and Barack Obama (drone striker in chief, from Libya to Afghanistan). You're going to have a modern day Allen Dulles on your shoulder, telling you all about how you're going to be greeted as a Liberator once you put down the pen. And you're going to kill a whole lot of people for reasons that make you feel good, but end up doing a lot of evil.
If nothing else, consider how many folks in NATO countries would have - if given the Death Note - immediately scribbled the names of a dozen world leaders from rival countries? And then a dozen political leaders from rival parties? And then a dozen national celebrities and media figures with rival ideologies? And then what would the consequences of this be? Did Iranian government become better when Khomanie's name ended up in the book?
FFS, they explore this in the Anime. Light ends up killing a lot of good people simply because he's personally resentful or fearful of being caught.
So, if Jeffrey Epstein was alive, the person that wants to kill him because he raped their daughter is sick and should be kept away from society?
Killing innocent people, and killing for self-defense are different.
I think the person who thinks Jeffrey Epstein would deserve to live is sick.
They didn't say that people like that shouldn't have consequences, drastic and significant ones, but they may disagree with the specifics.
Additionally, raping and murdering is what the quote is saying is wrong. The original quote does not state an opinion on using death as a penalty for these acts. For such a consequence, one could argue that it is necessary to distinguish murder and capital punishment as two separate acts, with the latter being justified.
Finally, the quote is meant to point out to most people that regardless of their religious beliefs, they have a moral compass that is not contingent on their religious beliefs and that most people's compass will generally point in similar directions. One could then conclude that religion is not required to know right from wrong.
I agree with you, but it's assuming the justice system functions. What happens when it no longer punishes those who need punished most?
Edit: original with horrible typos for posterity: I agree with you, but it's assuming the justice system functions. What happens when it ninkonger ounushes those who need ounished most?
Learning new words today
Wow, that was nearly unreadable with how badly those typos were. I'm not sure what happened there. Lol.
Wanting to kill someone and wanting someone to be killed are quite different.
Wanting someone to face justice and wanting them dead are also quite different.
I suppose you're right, for people that believe in "justice" administered by state. As an anarchist, I view states as fictional entities, like fiat currency, they're not real (tho can have real effects), and are therefore not entitled to kill or imprison anyone for any reason, let alone to maintain order as they see it.
Also, wanting to kill and feeling the need to kill, such as in self-defense are different too.
I certainly do not trust the state's justice, therefore I can't trust them to execute someone even if we entertain he idea that executing someone is justified.
There used to be some people i wanted to kill, but theyve all died of other causes at this point lmao
Yeah, "other causes" 😉
That's the name of their gun lol.
Mine is named "natural causes."
Mine overdosed.
Hell yeah. Yeah they have actually been mostly OD's now that i think about it
I’ve found that a lot of that finds its roots in their absolutism about everything.
Humankind is absolutely wicked, god loves us endlessly, afterlife is for eternity, hell is beyond imaginable punishment, also forever, if you’ve looked at a woman you’ve already committed adultery,…
Always the thing pushed to its utmost extreme.
Leaving very little wiggle room or nuance. And I think that’s by design. These people get pushed (under threat of eternal punishment) and brainwashed to spread their ideology which is very hard because it’s batshit, so they have pre-emptively hype up their argument. Again, drive it to its formulaic extreme. Otherwise none of this gets even less of a chance to land.
(Source: used to be one of em)
Don't forget to reject and demonize the very thing that could help break that cycle: doubt. When everything else is so absolute, doubt is complete anathema. I've never met a person more sure of the world and their place in it than a devout Catholic.
If there's no Mom, what's stopping you from pooping your pants?
Religious nuts wouldn't understand this response.
Because it's waaay to clever.
I helped out a random stranger the other day. Not gonna tell the long story but He kept saying God must have guided me and God must be looking out for me too.
I didn't want to get into with him but No bro. I helped you because I saw you needed help. And figured I was in a position to do so. I had some extra time that day and just happened to be where you were.
Wasn't God.
I help people when I can because why not ? The relief on someone's face is enough payment. Plus I feel guilty when I don't help when I can. Not from fear of damnation but my empathy requires I do something.
Strangers have helped me in the past. I know how much of a difference that can make.
It's just frustrating to have your own "good" behaviors constantly assumed to be caused by God.
No. I chose to help. Me. No one else was involved. Isn't that a better lesson anyway? That there are people who help from a place of support rather than fear of judgement. ? Or some divine force ?
Next time you can say "God got you in trouble"
all hail daannii, god of helping strangers
Sounds good to me! All bow down to daanii or be purged! PURGE THE HERETICS!
Praise Daanii!
Daannii, Patron Saint of Stranger Helping
Amen!
Great news! You're all welcome to the new Church of Daannii I've started. We live purely for the glory of Daannii's sacrifice to strangers.
(Also, please remember to bring your 10% tithe each week.)
Praise Daannii!
Unlike Detective J.J. Bittenbinder, the Demonic Herald of Stranger Danger.
Holy shit this has to be how Christianity happened
Who knows how many saints were just atheists showing some common decency and empathy.
Sounds like something a Heretic would say…..
Same here. Help when you can.
Unlike theists whose morality is relative to what their religion tells them, our sense of morality is absolute.
Our sense of morals are adaptive and mutable, for good and ill. I have definitely done dumb stuff without thinking in the past, I have done the wrong thing with the best and worst of intentions, I try to learn from it and become a better person.
Also, I do not have some paternal permission slip of a god who will absolve me of my wrong doings, I have to live with everything I do, good and bad, it's a pretty powerful incentive to do better and to seek professional help when needed.
Not really. An atheists sense of morality is just based on the society they grew up in instead of the religion they were indoctrinated with. But that morality isn't absolute, it changes a lot depending on your circumstances and way of life and everyone's a bit different in that regard.
My favorite answer is a question: So without God, you would murder, rape and steal? No? Well, then it seems to me you don't need God to know what is morally correct.
Even better...
I already commit all the rapes and thefts I want to commit. 0. If you actually want to rape/steal than you're probably too far gone for Christ's forgiveness anyways.
Actually, at least in scripture, facing and resisting temptation is a virtue. There is a whole story about Jesus going into the desert to expose himself to the devil's temptation just to flex his morally superior willpower.
On a Christian blues album I listened to as a kid, there was also a song ("Fireproof", I think?) that has the devil tempt the narrator in various ways, with the result always being "Ain't no way, devil: I've been washed in the blood of the lamb. Ain't no use, I'm fireproof."
It's a whole theme. In the flavour I grew up with, there was this undercurrent of "we're constantly fighting a spiritual war", so facing temptation was a battle, and defying it a victory in that war.
Of course, that encouraged talking up the severity of the temptation you faced to make your victory look even greater, Caesar style: "Look at this strong, vicious adversary that the superior Roman Legions (under my command) overcame!" I'd credit that parish with many things, but excessive honesty is not among them.
Shame about the album though, it was a banger.
Unfortunately they tell themselves that Jesus forgives all, so they don't think they have to deal with consequences of their actions
100%
Unless they say yes...
Yeah a decent amount would. Even more would say no but do it anyways... Even back in the days when everyone believed they were eternally damned if they killed someone or worse.
This argument is the same that Kant made. Kant defended the notion that a person should do the correct thing for the sole reason that it is the correct thing.
Like putting the shopping cart back where it belongs
The shopping cart wants to be free!
Okay, but the assumption of correctness is a consequence of accrued education and experience.
What is the correct response to being slapped? Do you return in kind? Do you kill the perpetrator to restore your honor? Do you turn the other cheek? Do you call the police? Do you bluster, remain stoic, or cry out in pain? Do you apologize or argue? Do you stand your ground, advance, or flee? What is the correct action? There are a dozen different answers.
The premise of a Biblical Law (and, really, all laws and customs) is to establish a single assumed acceptable response. And the real threat of failing to follow this law isn't "eternal damnation" (an idea that wasn't really even canonical until the turn of the millennium) but social ostracism and legal reprisal.
The existence of a consequence also doesn't establish whether or not you're a good person. The purpose of consequences is to encourage good conduct. You follow the rules because you believe they are righteous. And you enforce the rules because you believe they are righteous. You recognize goodness of a general public as a predicate for social safety and economic prosperity. And you hold to an "eternal reward/punishment" as a consequence that goes above any individual actor's failure to identify or prosecute bad behavior, because you see the net consequence of bad conduct in the aggregate as a kind-of Hell On Earth for the rest of your people.
That's why Hobbes and Locke and even Machiavelli posit a better rationale for virtuous conduct than Kant. They see past the "honor system" and recognize the real macro consequences. Societies that fail to meet some basic standards of decency devolve into miserable, violent slums and cultish backwaters. They are damned in life long before they face a judgement after death.
I think this is also why there's more "criminality" in opressed communities. Why would I work or sacrifice to uphold a system that is unfair to me? If I don't believe in it, if I don't see benefit from it, why should I attach my own ethics to it?
Not really, no.
Would you want x done to you?
If not, don't do it to others.
It's as simple as that.
I wouldn't want to get bombed. Therefore, I refuse to defend Ukraine against Vladimir Putin, because it might involve bombing other people.
I wouldn't want to get fired, therefore I will not remove a direct report who is sexually harassing a coworker.
I wouldn't want to gain weight, therefore I will refuse to feed my young child.
We're taking about morally good and bad here.
Killing people in self defense might be necessary, but that doesn't make it good.
Killing people is morally bad, even if it's someone no one in their right mind would hesitate to murder if given the opportunity, like Putin.
I agree with the first person about morality determining how to respond socially. For example, why is killing someone in self defense necessary? Why shouldn't you just run? Responding to violence with violence could be bad if someone else thinks that you weren't in enough legitimate danger. Similarly, is it ok to kill if you are protecting someone else? What if the person you were protecting did not feel that killing was necessary?
If it's truly necessary, there's no option to run - no alternatives - it's your life or theirs.
I don't believe that you are picking up what I'm putting down. Why shouldn't you die instead? Why do we consider it understandable to defend yourself to the death? Obviously it is because we value lives more than whatever the other person wants that drives them to attack someone, but there isn't a strict reason for that beyond social acceptance. We could just as easy decide, as a society, that those who can't defend themselves should be culled. Or that murder is so incomprehensible that there is no reason to consider it.
Murder and death are obviously extreme examples, but you work that idea forward to charity, politeness, and social contract to yield to a government authority.
Morality varies widely by individual and culture.
Pro-Life folks have been saying this for decades.
Ffs, Zionists have been saying this.
You need more than just platitudes to build a moral foundation
Regardless, ancient scripture is no foundation for morality. It's simply what people came up with thousands of years ago before moral foundations got properly built. It took all that time to develop because tradition held humanity back.
By what standard?
Killing people is wrong. This is an immortal and unquestionable truth that everyone has always agreed upon
We didn't have a proper moral foundation until very recently, so disregard everything older than several hundred years ago.
What?
I can't believe someone made such a good post and still got downvoted for it. It's not a disagree button...
People are getting downvoted for pointing out the obvious logical fallacy in the op too, so yeah.
I didn't downvote the other person... but isn't it kind of a disagree button? What are the buttons for, if not to vote up the things you like, down the things you don't, and thus float the "best" to the top?
I guess one can respectfully disagree, given that we're kinda debating philosophy, or one can structurally disagree, and maybe those result in different kinds of voting behaviour.
It is astonishing how difficult it can be for some religious people to understand basic concepts of "don't be an asshole" without religion.
I talked to a muslim woman once, who asked if I was not afraid that my then girlfriend would cheat on me, because we both weren't religious. She basically said if you're afraid of a godly punishment then you can find trust and peace in a relationship.
I plainly answered that you do not need fear of any god to be considerate and careful with someone. Nor does this necessitate morals. And if she would betray me, then she simply would be an asshole and not the right person for me.
It went back and forth like this for a while, because she seems to have been astonished that people can have happy relationships built on mutual trust without fearing magical sky people.
I've thought about this a lot actually, but I figured it out. So when you're presented with a good choice and a bad choice, you go for the good one. Works every time.
Empathy. How is this so hard to grasp?
In-groups and out-groups, that's how it's "so hard".
We all have empathy and sympathy for our in-group. When it comes to basic respect, many of us have large in-groups that include the less fortunate, animals, etc, other's have a small in-group with themselves and their family, or their race, or their class. For the worst people, the in-group is themselves and maybe their children who can carry their legacy.
Because it's taught and not inherent. And like with anything else some people are too dumb to learn.
There is both a nature and nurture aspect to empathy, like most of our behaviors. Even toddlers share some things and gain enjoyment from it without prompting even if they are 'selfish' with most things.
This is the distinction between empathy and sympathy. Sympathy is a far older word and a synonym of compassion and what you describe in your comment. Empathy is a concept from aesthetics and psychology, though, (actually derived from the German Einfühlung circa 1909) and is really an intellectual activity. Real empathy is, indeed, taught.
If you want to learn more about empathy I can highly recommend Theodor Lipp's Leitfaden der Psychologie (a work of philosophy, not psychology as the title would suggest): Internet Archive [German].
Sources:
I already commented on this in this thread, but describing the concept of something and the something existing are two different things.
Sliced bread also wasn’t sold in stores until the 20th century, but people were slicing bread long long before that. People have been experiencing empathy since before we were homo sapians.
Prosocial behaviors have many origins and its multi factorial, the interplay between them are complicated. But it’s not like the feeling of empathy isn’t part of our genetic make up.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5513638/
Fascinating article, it was a pleasure to read! I learned something new, certainly. I am otherwise only familiar with empathy from philosophy.
The other thing you refer to – concept vs. actual reality, if I understand you correctly – is, of course, a very valid and big debate in linguistics; prescriptive definitions vs. descriptive definitions. That is why I linked the OED, since it is a historical dictionary. Or do you mean philosophical concept vs. physical reality?
My comment was about that prescriptive, philosophical definition of the word. But the study you link shows that empathy is, indeed, much bigger than that.
Really I didn't want to criticize the person I replied to, though – just share the origin of empathy (the word). But thank you for providing a far more detailed explanation of what it actually is!
I'm really struggling to wrap my head around it being a learned skill because it feels like second nature to me. Sometimes to my own detriment. But maybe that's because it's pretty common for ADHD folk to have high empathy.
ADHD sufferers can feel emotions more intensely, but aren't specifically more empathetic.
Because no human is born empathetic...
Everyone needs to be in a safe environment and have someone teach them empathetic.
Not understanding that, especially if you were lucky enough to be safe and have someone teach you...
Is a million times worse. And usually just means you're not really empathetic, just a veneer of it.
If someone is actually empathetic, they don't need to ask rheyorical questions about why some people have zero empathy.
That's literally what empathy is, which I honestly think might be the root of your confusion. You don't know what the actual word even means, you're just going off how others use it without understanding it.
Doctor Viktor Frankl and the entire field of logo therapy would disagree with you. Part of our entire motivation for life is finding meaning, empathy is one of the more basic ways we help ourselves find that meaning. Evolutionarily speaking altruism is pretty beneficial for members of a social species such as us.
Most humans are naturally empathetic, and it’s such a core feature that nothing can strip that away from them
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5513638/
That's actual science...
What you're talking about is a new age religion:
https://viktorfranklamerica.com/what-is-logotherapy/
And you say "neuroscientist" because that sounds modern, but guy was in his late 30s during WW2, neuroscience was barely a thing back then.
No one cares about quack cults.
Edit:
Like, literally most cults are built off that. A charismatic person has delusions while going thru something unspeakable, and people inspired by the leaders survival (even if by luck) just believe whatever rationalizations the leader says.
Do you actually believe that shit or did you just do a lazy Google and fall for it at a glance?
Can you give more fucks and in the right direction?
Just because the concept was talked about as Empathy in the 19th century by some German scientists doesn’t mean shit about the actual concepts integration in our species.
Sliced bread also wasn’t sold in stores until the 20th century, but people were slicing bread long long before that.
From your article:
I never said anything about the ability to develop or not develop empathy later in life. I said it’s mostly a natural trait. There are many reason for prosocial behaviors, and it’s mailability varies from nature to nurture.
ThIs Is ReAl ScIeNcE:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4685523/#RSTB20150077C14
The man had a doctorate from the University of Vienna, and was a practicing psychiatrist for several years before WW2. Look up his work at Steinhof Psychiatric Hosptial in the years prior to World War II. He saw thousands of patients in a clinical setting, and continue on the form theories. I don’t care about your opinions of his field or not.
I never referred to him as a neuroscientist, and I didn’t disagree that empathy could be also taught in some way.
So have fun making up imaginary arguments to try and defeat.
Nope, best of luck.
Lmao, exactly.
They didn't know what the fuck they were doing back then.
Enjoy the newfound religion though, weird choice to choose this community to spread it.
Fair enough buddy, good luck to you and your general outlook
A lot of those religious types scare me that one of the first things they'd do without consequences is murder and rape.
That the point : we are choosing
Actually, applying a dogma is not being a good jew/christian/muslim. Theologists justify almost everything in "God let us choose between Good and Evil". Ironically, their is many learning in the thora/bible/quran that underline the need to not being dogmatic
The irony is that empathy is such a foreign concept, yet "love thy brother" is kind of a big highlight to that whole Bible thing.
just follow the golden rule :)
As an atheist, I'm mad at how accurate this is
Lmfao that's my name and I even kind of look like that, I was really confused for a second
Aside from the already stated I would add, pay it forward. Whenever I help someone now I only ask the same in return, pay it forward.
I do not need the threat of eternal damnation to appreciate ordinary decent human beings, and to be one myself as much as I can.
Intelligence helps you understand how certain choices affect you in the long-term, and morality tends to align with long-term self interest. It makes sense people with low intelligence tend to appeal to an authority to derive their morality.
Not to even mention if you are basing your morality on almost any religions canon you support a bunch of heinous stuff.
The Bible teaches racism, sexism, and genocide. Nobody should be basing their moral choices on this book.
So all law is evil by atheist definition then?
Who wrote the law? They're mostly about enforcing an inequitable system, so...
I would put myself in that situation see how would I feel. If I feel hurt then it is likely bad, if I feel happy then it is probably good. This is without any bible or laws governing us. If we include laws then I would adjust a bit when it's good/bad is it illegal? TLDR: Empathy and Civic duty
dunno man, i choose...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urBpdyFCZmo
Not what he asked, but okay.
Right?
I get that the tweeter wanted to just blast on religious folks, but it makes them look like they don’t have an answer.
How one determines right from wrong is a pretty interesting question with a whole lot of guess work and gut feelings for most folks, regardless of faith.
A lot of philosophers, religious or otherwise, have spilled a lot of ink on the topic.
“Threat of eternal punishment “ doesn’t help you figure out right from wrong, just the consequences of choosing “wrong.”
Pretty much. They're going for the pithy, stolen witticism about 'why' rather than the 'how' the bald guy posted. People who care more about getting the dunk on 'bad' people than helping them understand are just being selfish.
Instead of how do they choose, the real question for an atheist is "how do they know what is good and what is evil?" With no ultimate moral authority or guideline, it can be difficult.
I don't think most religious people do good out of a fear of divine retribution, but instead they do good as a reflection of the God that they worship.
Either way, straw man arguments don't make progress in the discourse and only serve to divide.
The answer is called "having a sense of empathy." Which is naturally ocurring in most humans.
Empathy can play out in strange ways though. What if I was an antinatalist and thought the best way to show others empathy was to end their suffering?
I think you'd be doing the argument a disservice by thinking the answer can be so simple. This is something to wrestle with philosophically.
An antinatalist with empathy isn't trying to kill the babies that have already been born.
The golden rule is universal.
The good vs evil idea, phrased that way, is a trap. All the bullshit about idolatry and worshipping the wrong gods and whatever else is not objective evil, it's subjective evil based on your rules. So if you ask "how do you know what I think is evil?" the question makes no sense.
What, then, is objective evil? Is the golden rule all that exists to guide us?
Without a guide, I'm not sure humans have the capacity to answer that question.
In the way that I think you mean it I would say that such a thing doesn't exist in a way that is meaningful. On the first place, we would have to agree what "objective evil" even means, but if it's "the thing that powers the mystical sorting hat of souls" then the discussion is not getting off the ground.
In a more conversational/lexical way where we agree that good" is, well, good, and "evil" is bad I would say that the question posed doesn't really make sense. It's like saying "what temperature is objectively hot" which I could only say is either relative or subjective.
I don't think anybody needs a guide for that discussion, the part you could want a guide for is "what does it mean to me" but only insofar as you want to paint it magically / supernaturally with some greater implication.
So without the "magic sorting hat" telling us what's objectively good and bad, how does one navigate making the decisions?
I've found my own heart trying to rationalize actions that were retrospectively bad ones. Most "bad" people don't think of themselves as bad. This is a quandary I've found myself in, and I'm not sure humans have a good answer to this aside from the theological one.
It's all a question of framing and goals I suppose.
If it is your position that there is an absolute right being who knows objective standards of good and evil (whatever those words mean to it) and you must do those things to... 🤷. The answer is get to heaven I guess, because you want to go there for some reason to celebrate the supreme being for time without end, then I suppose that's what you've got to do.
If your position is more that there is absolute right and wrong and that by getting these from a god you will have better relationships, or more fulfilled life, or make more money or whatever if you pursue them then ok I guess. That seems to be a little naive. In the first place you will act imperfectly no matter what, and in the second place, you can measure directly against the outcomes you want. For example there are cultural norms, social norms, financial theory, etc.
I am sure there are far more cases philosophically speaking, but a solid argument is in your own comment: if you are TRYING to do good and make the best choices you can, then look back and realize they could be better, it means YOU GOT BETTER. From the standpoint that all of us are imperfect, the best we can do is improve the most we can in the direction we want. If your direction of choice is that one aligned to theology, then yeah I guess there's your answer. I, for one, want to do all the good person stuff from option 2 above for my earthly benefit. Assessing the relative goodness of options is all that is necessary for that, and society does the rest.
I can't predict what comes after with absolute certainty, but the idea that "I don't know absolute right answers" is not sufficient to poof a god argument into existence and to the top of the pile.
Edit: Incidentally, the first perspective up there is the framing for the post itself. If you don't go around killing people just because it's a rule and you want to get your treats, that sounds like sociopathy and be disqualifying from the colloquial use of "good person". It's like "well I would stomp that kitten, but Mom says if I stomp kittens I have to go to bed early" which is totally wild. As though if your mom didn't punish you, you'd just go kitten stomping for fun.
Because atheism just answers one question: do you believe in any god? It's not a full outlook on life.
Modern atheists often adopt secular humanism. You may want to look into that.
This is a clever response, but it avoids answering the question.
Atheists aren't one cohesive group, so there is no single answer. Atheists can be humanists or utilitarianists or any other (un)defined ideology they choose.
It's not like Christians all hold the same beliefs or moral framework. Some Christians think love is love, while others want to kill queer people. Which one is God's will? How do they know for sure?
At least the atheist takes responsibility for their own morality. Christians either interpret the Bible through their own confirmation bias or, even scarier, they are given their morality by a church leader.
Do you need an answer to the question?
If you got one, I'd like to hear it.
Atheists use whatever their morality tells them they should do. There's a complex interplay of empathy, conscience, whatever moral codes they've picked up from their family, their education, and/or society at large. Hopefully, it's all informed by logic and reason, but just like everything else we do it's driven by emotion.