Can Atheists be Good?
November 26th, 2006 by 
soulster
Drunkentune’s post “How to Talk to Atheists” is getting a lot of attention. It’s been a great starting point for conversation. During the dialogue, AV left an interesting website in a comment that was claiming to debunk Atheism by connecting it to the bloody dictatorships of the last century. The author of the article Atheism Kills, Muehlenberg, is using an association fallacy, according to drunkentune. In other words: if atheist A, B, and C committed such and such a crime, there must be something wrong with atheism itself.
Beepbeepitsme summarized this problem of how others see atheists:
I think that the basic premise, based in fallacy, is that atheists as they do not believe in god (but specifically, my god, or the god condoned by our country), must be, by default, obviously more capable of horrendous acts than any other group.
In other words, theists believe that there is NO morality without god, so therefore those who do not believe in god, must be immoral evidenced by their stated lack of belief.
So I suggested for our readers:
an effective way to debunk this fallacy for the readers of this site would be to 1) present an atheist ethical structure (not necessarily based on atheism, but one you would advocate that does not require God), or 2) present how atheists would prevent such problems as tyranny, genocide, and war.
Rather than take over drunkentune’s original post with our conversation about ethics, I thought we’d move this portion of the conversation to this post.
We’ve had some good responses, so far.
AV stated:
There’s no way to answer this question that would represent the position of all atheists.
But I think it’s fair to say that atheists approach moral questions in the same way that–most of the time–theists do: through reasoning. I daresay that if you were to ask the average Christian to identify reasons that we should not kill each other, other than “because God commands it,†he or she would not be stumped for an answer.
Another way of thinking about the question of whether ethics is possible without reference to a deity/deities is provided here.
And Beepbeepitsme offered:
There is no ethical structure based in atheism. There are merely atheists who may, or may not support a number of philosophical worldviews.
I will try to explain that as I am sure it needs qualification.
“Atheism†isn’t a system of belief even if some atheists and theists claim otherwise as the word “atheist†merely describes what someone does NOT believe in. Not what they do believe in.
Hence, it is not through the definition of being an atheist, that I have an ethical or moral philosophy, because the term atheist does not assert any positive claim.
It is kind of like asking someone who describes themselves as apolitical, to please demonstrate how they form their opinions on politics.
Humanists do, in their various philosophical forms, present an ethical worldview, and some of those people define themselves as atheists and agnostics. But one does not need to be an atheist or an agnostic in order to be a humanist.
From my experience, atheists and theists arrive at similar conclusions concerning ethics and morality. Atheists just get there without god belief.
I think that all of us derive our morality and ethics from a number of sources.
These sources may include:
1. our family
2. our community
3. our culture
4. our education
5. our socialization
6. our tribe
7. our religion
(in no particular order)The common basis for ethical behaviour stems from the concept of mutually beneficial actions and behaviours.
Human beings are “pack animals.†From the time of the cavemen to the time of technology, we have recognised the need to act and behave for mutual benefit.
This generosity of cooperation would have at first been limited to the small tribal group, (probably the family group),and would have been crucial in order to preserve the existence of said group.
This would have gradually extended itself to larger groups with which they may have shared a common interest or goal.
So, it is basically an evolving survival mechanism. The major problems occur when large groups which also share a similar survival mechanism, disagree on a major issue. Such as religion or politics.
Then the courtesy and goodwill which exists within each group towards its members, is not necessarily extended to those outside of the group.
So, tenets of belief such as “love everyone as yourself†tend to only apply to those who support the interests of the group.
And these beliefs are retracted and cease to be extended to members outside of the group, if an opposing group threatens, or appears to threaten the existence of the group.
In other words, our sense of morality and ethics is determined by our tribal group, even if that tribal group has now extended itself to encompass a nation or nations.
I forgot to mention that religious beliefs have acted as a method to encourage conformity within respective groups. Whether this was through the worship of the sun, the worship of the king as a god, or the worship of a “personified man god.â€
Religion has been a tool for societal glue. Or another way of defining the group and the interests and behaviours of the group. This has occured regardless of the truth of any of the gods which have been worshipped throughout human history.
Sheep are always much easier to herd and much easier to convince that the group is undeniably correct.
Herding atheists is like herding cats. The streak of individualism is strong in them.
I would like to ask some questions for any atheists who would like to venture an answer.
- If reason is the basis for your ethics, how do you develop that: normative ethics, descriptive ethics, or applied ethics [wiki “ethics”]?
- To what extent would you say your are moral — holding to social rules or “mores”?
- Would you agree with “enlightened self-interest” as the basis for ethics?
- What are the best examples of ethical behavior without belief in God?
Feel free to answer any questions that you wish or strike out onto new ground. Think about educating the readers about your ethics as if they had nver thought about it before. Theists, please continuing asking questions to find out more, since this seems to be one of the “sore spots” in our relationals with atheists.
Update:
Read this blog post with some eye-opeining facts about the history of debate over atheist morality.
Posted in atheism, definitions and descriptions, ethics | 
November 26th, 2006 at 10:33 am
AV, you said that reason was the basis for ethics. I read the article you posted and it seemed to advocate “enlightened self-interest” as the basis for ethics. Would you agree with this? If so, could you spell out a little more how that works?
Beepbeepitsme, it seems you are advocating ethics based on the principle of cooperation, but it’s interesting that you are saying this is defined by groups for social benefits. In some way, it seems that your are talking about morality — the conformity to social norms or “mores”. What would you as an atheist do when morality, or the group ethic, is based on a system that claims to be religious in origin, as much of the groups in the world claim? How can you forge cooperation outside of a shared narative/meta-narrative in such a situation? Doesn’t this put you ”outside the group” in some cases?  Also, it would seem that socially defined cooperation wouldn’t be the ethic of choice of “cats”, since it is the preference of “sheep”, and seems to be very “uncatlike” in some ways. Since non-conformity in such situations is immoral (not necessarily absolutely, but according to the group), how are non-conformists supposed to be considered moral and join the group for cooperation?Â
November 27th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
RE: “What would you as an atheist do when morality, or the group ethic, is based on a system that claims to be religious in origin, as much of the groups in the world claim?”
They may claim it, and they do, but I don’t see any obvious correlation between god belief and morality.
Neither god belief nor the lack of it, guarantees moral or ethical human behaviour.
People cooperate because it is mutually advantageous. We are also capable of natural feelings such as empathy, sympathy, remorse etc.
Our natural abilities to empathize with other humans also forms the basis of what we consider to be moral or ethical.
There are rare people who are termed sociopathic, who apparently are incapable of these emotions, but for the vast majority of us these human emotions alow us, by understanding our own needs, to understand the needs of others.
So, I think that morality has as much to do with our genetic origins than it has with any hierarchial supernatural construct that we have devised in an attempt to keep people in line.
Primatologists like Frans de Waal have long argued that the roots of human morality are evident in social animals like apes and monkeys.
The animals’ feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are essential behaviors for mammalian group living and can be regarded as a counterpart of human morality.
Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist, has built on this idea to propose that people are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution.
In a new book, “Moral Minds†(HarperCollins 2006), he argues that the grammar generates instant moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the conscious mind.
It implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior.
And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior. (from Atheist girl - http://www.atheistgirl.blogspot.com/ )
I would also draw your attention to a recent study concerning bees.
Just recently scientists mapped the bee genome. They were interested to try and explain why it was evolutionary advantageous for worker bees to be sterile and to invest all their time and life caring for the eggs of a single queen bee.
What they observed was that in some hives, a small percentage of bees which were usually worker bees and sterile, were actually laying eggs in the hive given the opportunity.
They called these bees “anarchist bees” because their behaviour conflicted with the usual reproductive and social pattern exhibited within the hive.
By mapping the genome of a “normal worker bee” and that of one of these “anarchist bees”, they were able to compare the differences in their genomes.
What they found was that the “anarchist bees” did not have the reproductive indicators turned off which would have made them sterile. Instead they were fertile, just as the queens were.
The scientists wondered why a small % of bees exhibited with genomes which expressed this physical behaviour.
They conducted an experiment whereby they seeded a hive with a queen and a much larger collection of “anarchist bees” than would normally be present in a hive.
The result was inevitably disasterous for the hive. When nearly all the bees were trying to lay eggs, there were not enough sterile bees to do the work, and the social structure of the hive collapsed.
It was always wondered what evolutionary advantage sterility might have considering that fertility is the key to passing on genes.
And why would such a large population of bees bar one, the queen, invest all their energies and life into the rearing of another bee’s young?
Essentially, sterility IS an evolutionary advantage for bee hives. Scientists refer to this sterility as “genetic altruism.”
“Altruistic” in the sense that the majority of bees have, through natural selection, had their ability to breed waived, in favour of the continuation of the hive and the continuation of the species.
This suggests that what we may consider as a moral behaviour, namely altruism, has been natural selected in bees and is expressed genetically.
I think that natural selection in human beings has also resulted in the genetic expression of moral traits.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
That this question is even posted is quite some insult. Are Christians really saying that if they were satisfied that their faith had been disproved they would then go out on a spree of killing and rape?
November 27th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
First off, I’M NOT AN ATHEIST, but I just wanted to make an observation. Notice that beepbeepitsme says atheism doesn’t lead to one type of moral position. Little does he realize that to make an observation on morality he’s necessarily holding to a moral position. Furthermore, if atheism has no absolute gauranteed morality, then it must be relative. Just my two cents, Frank
November 27th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Frank,
I may sound cold and heartless, but please understand: You aren’t making much sense.
I believe that you are building a strawman when you claim that beepbeep is arguing from an atheist’s standpoint, when it was made clear that, to quote beepbeep,
beepbeep was arguing from a secular humanist’s worldview.
Atheism does not claim to give a moral position. For example, you are atheistic to the Islamic god. Should one argue that since you do not hold a moral position in relation to Allah that your morals are relative?
The fact that the earth is not the center of the universe, but in reality is in a small corner, is not moral.
The fact that the universe is not ten thousand years old, but in reality is very, very old, is not moral.
The fact that fairies, the Roman Pantheon, and Bigfoot do not exist is not moral.
They are facts.
Must I continue?
November 27th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Hey guys,
I just found this blog via John Loftus’ Debunking Christianity blog.
I think this is a GREAT idea! And to see my esteemed buddy Drunkentune doing the atheist half is awesome.
While I am not familiar with Soulster, I am confident that Drunkentune found a good Christian co-author, as he is an intelligent fellow. So any friend of Drunkentune’s is a friend of mine!
Im totally gonna link you guys on my blogroll too. Again, great idea, and keep this blog active!!!
And Merry Christmas!
November 27th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Thanks for the explanation, beepbeepitsme. I’ve also read some of the interesting research on “primate morals”, but the bee study is new to me. If you have links to some of this reading on the internet, I encourage you to post them.
While this seems to be a reasonable explanation for origins of much morality, I would like to see some of your (or other’s) thoughts on how to develop cooperative ethics from this point onward. For example, to say that morals will happen naturally, given certain evolutionary principles, is fine. However, we must build forward with care since not everthing evolutionarily might be ethically suitable for us. For example, some primate males will kill babies [here] not from their bloodline in a brutal form of sexual competition. This may be evolutionarily advantageous because it insures the genes of the strongest, most agressively protective males, survive. However, I would suggest that this behavior would be wrong for humans (da!) even if similar evolutionary advantages would be gained. This is an extreme case but it illustrates a point. If morality is genetically hard-wired, how would you say we can cooperate and develop a morality we can all agree with from that point without simply endoursing a “social Darwinism” [wiki] or raw evolutionary ethics of natural selection?
November 27th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Sorry for the insult, The Labour Humanist. If you read the article AV linked to in original post above, you will find that many Christians assume no God=no morals, thus the need for the article. In several years of ministry, I heard more than one Christian say that without God they would be immoral — sort of a monster. In fact, one common religious synonym immorality is “godlessness”. While that in and of itself might be offensive, it is what it is, and discussion would likely be the way forward.
Thus the need for this question. In the interest of education, I was attempting to allow some space for an explanation from my atheist readers (and Christians who want to ask questions) who could potentially shed light on the subject. I appologize if my title is offensive, but it is more likely to get believers to read it then if it was titled “Why You’re Not Allowed to Think For a Second That Morals is an Issue for Atheists.” It may not be, but since that is often assumed, I thought, hey, let’s start with the assumption, wrong or not. Please do not let your anxst at my ignorance keep you from further commenting.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Thanks for the encouragement Aaron. I needed it today.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
I always DID think atheists could be good. That’s why I have posted a paper:
Are all Atheists Utterly “Wicked and Evil”? The Multiple Complex Causes of Atheist Disbelief, Romans 1 and 2, and the Possibility of Atheists’ Salvation
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/are-all-atheists-utterly-wicked-and.html
I have immensely enjoyed the majority of my dialogues with atheists through the years. Others have been a pain in the butt and obnoxious as hell.
My problem with drunkentune came when he insisted on treating me (at Debunking Christianity) like an ignorant, petulant, know-it-all ass. He came with an ax to grind. I was trying to show that not all Christians hate atheists or fight straw men where they are concerned.
There’s only so much one can do. But the discussion between he and I became foolish and absurd and I always refrain frm further interaction when this happens (hence he later blasted me as “running away” on his blog, as if his tremendous insight frightened me terribly and I just couldn’t handle it. LOL).
drunkentune claims he’ll be diffent on this blog than he is on his own. I think that is an illusion. People are what they are. One can’t be schizoid and deliberately act one way here and another over there (i.e., when there is a contradiction).
I think is an exercise in self-delusion at best and a ruse at worst (but I accept the former, in charity). The truth of his views about Christianity will come out one way or another.
IF there is condescension or intellectual disdain (which is my impression thus far; it could very well be wrong) it WILL come out here. People can only hide their true feelings and opinions so long.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Dave,
It’s good to hear from you again! I admit that I found you to be interested only in apologetics, not in a search for truth, and myself quite offensive during our conversation (weather that’s true or not is none of my business). I admit that I took it too far, and for that I do apologize. I’m not one to hold a grudge against someone who is interested in talking freely and openly. However, I assure the Christian readers here that my intentions are only to better atheist/Christian (or Christian/atheist, if you so choose) conversation. If we’re stuck with each other, it would be best if we can get along, or at least learn to live together.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
On his own blog, e.g., drunkentune posts a picture of “p%#&Christ”, the marvelous, artsy depiction of a crucifix in urine. All we need now (for us Catholics) is the other “work of art” (I forget the name) where Mary is covered with feces. Ah, the wonders of some of the more famous and notorious examples of the anti-Christian “aesthetic” imagination!
That’s eminently designed to endear Christians to him, isn’t it, and to cause them to desire interacting with him in intelligent, amiable discourse?
Right. And we are supposed to be gullible enough to think that he will act differently here and show respect, when he does that over there? If he has, alas, undergone a radical transformation of attitude, then let him renounce that “work of art” and remove it! Simple enough, one would think.
That IS an insult, at least to my intelligence. I don’t see how it could be otherwise. It’s too clear of an insulting and offensive example. He does that over there and writes an essay here on how one ought to respectfully approach atheists. Jesus made a little parable about this sort of behavior: something about a log in one’s eye while complaining about a speck in another’s.
Now granted, how many Christians act towards atheists would constitute a log in their eye as well (I couldn’t agree more). But putting a log in an atheist eye isn’t justified by the log in many Christian’s eyes. It just lowers the atheist to the same level that he is criticizing.
One can search far and wide on my blog and never find anything remotely that insulting to an atheist — and much quite to the contrary. See, e.g.,:
Secular Humanism and Christian Humanism: Seeking After Common Ground (written with atheist Sue Strandberg)
http://web.archive.org/web/20030604074536/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ513.HTM
The closest I come to a possible “insult,” I suppose, would be a Malcolm Muggeridge-type parody on atheist materialism that is, I would contend, far milder in possible offensiveness than 1001 condescending atheist critiques of Christianity as infantile, identical to belief in Santa Claus, the opiate of the masses, etc. , etc. ad nauseum. See:
The Atheist’s Boundless Faith in Deo-Atomism (”The Atom-as-God”)
http://web.archive.org/web/20030417144135/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ451.HTM
November 27th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
I accept and appreciate the apology; I did before also (and ceased talking about you on my blog, unlike your behavior vis-a-vis myself on yours). But I have big problems with some of what you are saying or making out as your present attitude, per my above post.
And it is still unclear to me whether fruitful discussion is possible between us at the present time. That doesn’t rule out the possibility in the future (I’m not the type who holds grudges or who thinks people can never change).
Chances are, if that is ever to happen, that I would observe how you conduct yourself here for a while, and then if I think there is a possibility of good conversation, then perhaps we could give it another go.
One must understand that these types of decisions on my part are far less personal, as much as they are merely matters of time-management. As a Christian (Catholic) apologist, I deal with many many topics and dialogue with lots of people.
If I think one particular discussion is not going anywhere or accomplishing anything, then understandably I’m reluctant to pursue another with the same person (assuming things stay the same; if they don’t, then that is something else again. . .).
November 27th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Dave,
I had actually (I kid you not) stumbled across your post on our conversation several weeks after our tussle at DC. Once I saw your response and the comments on the post, I decided that we ended on a bad light, so I was going to allow you to send me the information (be it links or writing) on your argument for Catholicism and end our strained relationship there. Of course, being the asshole I can be, I was going to methodically respond to it…Here, however, I’ll be refraining from that style of writing.
I made it very clear that this website would be different from my personal website. I said
You have reservations. That’s fine with me. However, asking me to remove something from a rant site when we are having a discussion on a separate site is confounding. If I posted such a picture here, then your words would carry weight, because I would be at fault. If you examine the post in question, a poem accompanies it. Reading it is on par with watching The Last Temptation of Christ: it’s a different look at Jesus – a look at the human side to a god. Of course the picture is offensive. However, I did not attempt to use it for shock value.
I am no different in my attitude. I still preemptively consider many Christians to be ignorant, or in some cases, just plain wrong. Yet, here I swallow my pride and attempt to talk and work around my biases. This site in part is to help clear up misconceptions and enable dialogue. If you go to my personal website, however, you will not receive any kid gloves.
I hope you come back some time. Your views would be very interesting to hear.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Firstly, I don’t think it’s an either/or question: either reason or enlightened self-interest being the basis for ethics. (I consider reasoning to be a method for determining what is ethical.
Second, and interestingly, I don’t think that the use of reason or the motive of enlightened self-interest leads us all to the same place regarding what we might consider ethical. (You might make a parallel argument for Christianity.) So, for example, an atheist might reach many of the same ethical conclusions as his or her Christian counterparts–except that in the atheist’s case such conclusions might be reached as the outcome of reasoning, rather than out of deference to the prescriptions of a holy book.
Having said that, I do think it ought to be acknowledged that Christians employ reasoning in reaching ethical decisions also; it’s just that Christians have the “deference to Scripture” option, whereas atheists do not.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
I would point out to Christians that drunkentune, in his first post took a confessional attitude and said:
This comes as close to repentance (the change of heart and mind we claim to value so much) as you can in cyberspace, so I intend to accept it. There may be slip ups, etc. What we are trying to do is hard and seldom done. We may, at times, loose restraint and say (or more likely type) something offensive. But, if we exhibit the best of possible human-to-human behavior — patience, listening, openness, honesty, appology, concern — I think there is a chance that we will leave this conversation changed for the better.
Likewise, I want to respect drunkentune’s freedom of speech on his own blog space because I have my own. I have exercised my freedom of speach by saying I find that picture offensive in the comments to said post, but I have also made it a point not to demand he does anything with his own blog or end this important dialogue over it. If everything esle is being censored by someone, let the blogosphere be free.
While I do not generally attack atheism in my own space, I may debunk it, which to some may be offensive. Likewise, I tend, in that space, to talk of Christianity’s impulse to be universal or its exclusivity, which some atheists might find highly offensive. I reserve the right to write for a particular readership, as my religious sites are intended for certain readers and may be exited with a click. Just because I might say one offensive thing (or several) somewhere do does not mean that anything I say is worthless. Simply take what you can and spit out the rest. In my opinion, that should be our attitude with anything in cyberspace, otherwise we will continue the flaming, the cultures wars, the verbal abuse, and the blog smearing indefinitely. Snore!
I’ve read drunkentune’s blog, and have chosen to dialogue with him because I have (uh, what’s the right word…oh, yeah) faith in him. I hope many of our readers will do the same. Of course, you may decide not to. But please try to help our project and do what is ultimately helpful to it’s stated ends, which might not include dragging in past cyber-misbehaviour. I certainly would not want people dragging the darker side of my e-self into this blog.
Dave, please feel free to ask questions or make further comments. I agree that a Catholic apologist would be a great addition to the conversation. Maybe a good place to start would be to check my comments and see if there is anything you would agree with or have a different perspective, us both being believers.Â
November 27th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
I submit that soulster may want to consider adding another point to his magnificent post, “How to Talk to Believers”:
[proposed]:
“10. Don’t mock or belittle sacred elements of Christianity, if you desire to have mutually-respectful discussions with Christians (examples: the crucifix of Christ in a bottle of urine or Mary covered in feces, or presenting same with approval on one’s blog).”
Personally, I find it virtually irrelevant that drunkentune posted it on his “rant” site rather than here. The fact of its posting (wherever it is) remains as offensive to most Christians, and that is a disconnect with his stated intention to have better dialogue (the sincerity of which I don’t deny), because he is not a divided person.
He may try to divide his behavior on a pragmatic or methodological basis, but it doesn’t follow that his opinion is schizoid. It is what it is.
It’s cognitive dissonance in the same sense that Michael Richards’ racist tirade (complete with a reference to lynching, of all things!) is dissonant with his claim to not be a racist (whether he is in actuality or not). Even he recognized that he had a problem and that his behavior and his stated non-racist worldview are at odds.
Likewise with someone who says he wants respectful discussion with Christians, yet posts this sort of thing. People (Christians and fair-minded atheists) don’t care that it is in a separate venue; they think it is despicable that it was posted at all.
A word to the wise is sufficient . . .
I don’t see this as even arguable, but if someone thinks it is, I’d love to see their reasoning for that.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Good point, AV. When I read the article you posted, I thought that “en-lightened self-interest” was part of reasoning. I also agree with what you say:
Yep. I’m not interested in a universal logic ethic for atheists, but I would like to hear more about yours. Where does it start? Where does it arrive? How does it get there? Etc.
And, again, your right that Christians use both reason and blind quoting of the literal text. Reasoning is often part of the arguement of the text itself. Often, biblical ethical arguements are intensely logical. I think blind quoting of the text is dangerous, and it should indicate to the believer a place where they should do some more research into both the text and other sources.
November 27th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Hi soulster,
I think your comments are great; those that I have seen. Yours is an impressive, praiseworthy Christian mind and disposition indeed. Kudos! It’s good to see that atheists seem to think so as well. This is a wonderful goal that you have here (and I include drunkentune in that appraisal as well).
I agree that drunkentune’s statement you cite above is an admirable effort and I am perfectly willing to accept that he is making a good faith attempt to improve in that regard. I have no problem with that at all.
But it doesn’t affect my point that posting the crucifix-in-urine is at cross-purposes to what he wants to do here, even though it isn’t posted here. HE posted it. That is the point; not WHERE it was posted. The fact itself of posting such a thing sends a clear message to Christians that they will be mocked and have even their most sacred visual representations dragged through the mud . . . er, pee. We’re sick to death of that, needless to say.
I’m a complete advocate of freedom of speech (I’ve only banned one person from my blog in almost three years, and that was a notorious anti-Catholic troll so offensive that even many prominent anti-Catholic blogs have also banned her). Even so, she was allowed to rant and put me down for over a year, even against the will of many of my vistors, before I and everyone else had had enough and she was banned.
When I moderated my own ecumenical discussion board in the late 90s (I’ve been online since March 1996), I only banned one person, too, and that was a “traditionalist” Catholic who insisted on running down Protestants. Even he parted on friendly terms!
So that is my record. I have consistently lived by my belief on this, and have literally more than 350 dialogues posted where the opposing view gets vigorously aired on my blog, as well as my own. I believe people should see both sides of an argument presented, and then make up their mind with the best available data on both sides.
Nor have I made any “demand” (rightly-understood). I would say that my present concern completely bypasses the freedom of speech issue. The debate isn’t over whether speech should be free and uncensored, but over the quality and constructive or non-constructive nature of free speech (per your goals on this very blog). That can’t be forced legally; it can only be voluntarily offered, intellectually and ethically.
It goes beyond mere legalism and coercion, to mutually agreed-upon atheist/Christian ethics in conduct towards one another.
I would say it even has a pragmatic, “supra-ethical” element:
1. An atheist desires mutually-respectful, constructive discourse with Christians.
2. Christians (in this instance, you and I both) have made it clear that certain images deliberately or arguably mocking and belittling their most secredly-held beliefs and symbols are offensive and “below the belt.”
3. The atheist then has a decision to make:
A. He can stand on an absolutist principle of “free speech” and absolutely refuse to remove the offensive article in question, no matter how it makes Christians react.
or:
B. He can recognize that offending the Christian he truly wants to talk to in a constructive, charitable manner is at cross-purposes with continuing to post such an offending thing, and voluntarily remove it, as a good faith gesture, thus supporting his stated sincere attempts to talk to in a constructive, charitable manner.
4. 3B is not, therefore, done because of coercion and suppression of free speech in a legalistic sense, but rather:
A. Out of either an ethical concern, in charity, for the feelings of those he is trying to dialogue with,
or:
B. At the very least a pragmatic effort to do those things which sensibly and in great likelihood improve the prospects at success of said endeavors.
5. None of the foregoing, therefore, entails any denial or denigration of the right of free speech in the least. Rather, it transcends that consideration and is simply submitting what are sensible and ethical things to do, given certain other related desires and goals.
6. It’s the same as saying that you don’t use the “n” word if you want to get along with black people, or deny the Holocaust if you want to get along with Jewish people or continually make fun of menstruation or menopause if you want to get along with women or say that Arabs or Muslims are inherently terrorist supporters or anti-democratic, if you want to get along with them. There are lines not to be crossed. We all have them and we all exercise them; it is only a matter of where and when (and why).
7. Likewise, if you want to get along with Christians, you don’t make fun of beliefs that they hold sacred, under the tired justification of “free speech,” as good discussion always (I would even say, necessarily) transcends the ultimately arbitrary limits that mere, bald legal-type conceptions involve.
November 27th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Dave,
You have the right to go to my personal website. You also have the right not to visit, or to write what you wish about my website here. However, even if a post offends you, I should remind you that my blog is full of such offending statements, ad hominem attacks, and general meanness. Should I remove all of which that offends you?
I don’t try to hide my animosity. It is commentary, an editorializing of the world around us. I thought I made it clear that the picture, in conjunction to the poem, was something other than mere baiting. The rest of the post details the dangers I see when some forms of Christianity claim dominion over others, influencing public policy. All this time, Christ’s image is used for an agenda that he may not have stood for. Religion should never get special treatment.
Please understand that from my position, I cannot remove the image. I stand in opposition to political correctness, but I do not actively engage in attempting to offend. It may have offended you, but the image is not pertinent to this website or its content. If soulster asked me before we began Philaletheia to remove the image, I would have considered doing so.
For example: If soulster had images of Darwin on his website that he Photoshopped in an inappropriate manner, I wouldn’t find it necessary for him to remove the offending picture. To me, at least, this website is the equivalent of a church: anything you may have done outside is of no importance; what matters is that while you are here, you will be safe from personal attacks. Outside of this website, no promises of the sort can be made.
soulster again puts it into better words than I could:
While it is not a slippery-slope argument, consider for a minute that a young-earth creationist commented here, asking on good terms with excellent prose and wit for me to remove content pertaining to evolution or cosmology. The creationist may find the content offensive, but it is mere editorializing on an altogether different website. I run a small website, read by a small group of acquaintances. It is for “insane rants.” You’ve written your letter to the editor, and I understand your objection to the content, but the picture will stay.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Youre very welcome Soulster.
Frank Walton doesnt know what he’s talking about. Frank cannot provide a moral reason to follow God’s commands. It is quite impossible to base morality on God’s rules, for one must make a moral judgement to follow His rules in the first place. Why does he obey God’s word? Because God says so? But thats only pushing the question back: why does Frank care what God says?
Ultimately, it comes down to saving one’s ass from eternal fire.
Atheism in itself offers no moral code, but this is not a problem, contrary to what Frank Walton claimed. Atheism is not an axiom, so it needs not be a foundation. Indeed, atheism is a CONCLUSION based on OTHER axioms.
Axioms like identity and causality, etc.
The way that I, as an atheist, act morally is through the recognition of materialistic and naturalistic axioms and presuppositions.
Without boring anybody (too late?) it basically comes down to the fact of self-ownership.
I own me, not you. You own you, not me. Therefore, morality is based on one fulfilling their own values. So basically anything is moral as long as it conforms to the self-ownership principle.
But how does this allow me to identify immoral acts? Easy! Through the violation of the self-ownership principle: coercion.
If you try to force me to fulfill YOUR values, then you are being immoral. Theft, lies, violence, are all attempts to force another to fulfill ones values.
Consent = moral (because it conforms to self-ownership) and coercion = immoral (because it violates self-ownership).
Is this all relative? Nope. Why? Because no matter what you do, self-ownership is a truth that will reveal itself time and again when prodded.
For example: just try to get my body to fulfill your values without going through my consciousness first. Its impossible! Lets say you want me to scratch your back. Well, you have to ask me, or force me with some kind of threat. You need to somehow get through my consciousness, and that is because my body is owned by me through brute fact of biology.
What if you want to rape me? You could drug me so that I am unconscious, but even then, you had to deal with my consciousness. In this case, through force.
When tested empirically, self-ownership will prove itself time and time again without fail. You can, for example, make your arm move with your mere thought-command. But just try to get my arm to move with your mere thought-command! Nope, youre gonna have to ask me or force me.
There are only two ways for two self-owning agents to interact: through consent, or through force. Consent is moral, force is immoral. Consent recognizes the sovereignty of the individual, coercion attempts to violate it.
There you go. A moral system based on scientific fact that is true all its own.
Frank Walton even has to borrow from it in order to justify his adherence to the biblical moral code. There is no other way for him to provide an answer as to why he follows God’s commands. The only thing he can do is either to recognize self-ownership, or to push the question back over and over.
Why follow Gods rules?
Because he commands me to!
Why do you care what he commands?
Because he says I should?
But why dco you care what he says?
Because my rear will roast if I dont!
Whoops! Theres the self-ownership principle!
November 27th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Fascinating, drunkentune.
You start here all clean and reformed with the following statement (that soulster cited as evidence of “a confessional attitude”:
It either is or it isn’t. You are one person with two blogs. Not two persons with two blogs. But if the two radically contradict in some fashion, it seems to me that this makes you a bit schizoid or profoundly divided.
But now you say:
I see. So you have reformed your propensity towards “haughty debate”, “insulting people” and “ad hominem attacks” BUT you’re quite willing to carry on the behavior that you have repented of here on your own blog, where all the rules of the “fair fight” are giddily suspended.
Forgive me; I see that as schizoid. Anyone who thinks that this represents some big change on your part is in for a rude awakening, I think.
Isn’t it obvious? If you have come to re-think your past behavior, then obviously you would apply the reformation across the board; not continue to allow expression of it in one place while allegedly refraining and being on your best behavior in another place.
It reminds me of Mick Jagger’s quip when the Rolling Stones were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of fame: “we’re all here on our best behavior being rewarded for 25 years of bad behavior.”
Doesn’t anyone else see this contradiction? Am I the only one?
And again, I reiterate: my objection has nothing to do with free speech. I don’t censor. I don’t even demand removal. I try to persuade others that some things may not be conducive to other goals that said person is trying to achieve. A word to the wise . . .
But I observed today how a guy who runs one pretty meaty atheist blog (that I have enjoyed reading, and appreciated), has just banned five Christians from it. He may have good reasons. They may have deserved it. I’m not dealing with that aspect, but only with the claim to value free speech, while one is quick to ban and eject folks from his own environs.
It works both ways. Christians get accused of the censorious attitude with those they disagree with, but they ain’t the only ones who do it.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Aaron,
At this site, I’m trying not to push the limits. I understand that you’re attacking Frank’s ideas (in fact, I did so at comment #5), but perhaps using a different tactic besides strong-arming them into the truth will get our message across. I find it difficult to do so, but I think I’ve already progressed a good deal. We can still obliterate their arguments, but imagine doing so without resorting to playing bad pool - with well-meaning smiles on our faces, no less! They might even consider them, instead of dismissing them offhandedly as another evil atheist’s use of polemics.
With your argument for self-autonomy is an excellent one, I’d like to see it used more often in conjunction with an argument for preventing pain and suffering or an argument for an evolved moral code. While moral codes are fine and all, what I care about is that if you’re at the end of a football field, and a dog on the opposite end of the field is on fire, you’re running as fast as you can to save the dog. Under your argument, the dog can just burn. If we recognize that altruism and cooperation are beneficial for the individual, and not just the group, and may be an evolved mechanism, than saving the dog is the natural thing to do.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Dave,
What are you trying to accomplish? Are you asking me to remove the picture, acknowledge this division inherent, or shut down my website? I recognize that these are two different websites, and if an idiot comments on my blog, I’m going to give him Hell and send him on his way. If he’s a Christian that wishes to engage in dialogue, his time may be better spent here.
It sounds to me like you’re quote mining, but I did not intend my out-of-context remark
to imply that outside of this website, I would personally engage in ad hominems. I intended to show that the Internet is heavy with such use, and this website would be a haven where that would not be permitted.
I could be wrong, but it feels like you’re trying to poison the well from the start.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
RE: soulster
Anarchy in the hive
Is Altruism Innate?
Honeybee genome
Genetic similarity, human
altruism, and group selection
RE: ” However, we must build forward with care since not everthing evolutionarily might be ethically suitable for us. For example, some primate males will kill babies [here] not from their bloodline in a brutal form of sexual competition.
This may be evolutionarily advantageous because it insures the genes of the strongest, most agressively protective males, survive.”
Everything evolutionary might not be suitable for us?
Natural selection as espoused by darwin, does not include human intentionality or human approval.
If you are refering to artifical selection, selective breeding, or eugenics as “evolution” - it should be remembered that these processes are distinct from natural selection.
Natural selection occurs at the genetic level without a human prescribed outcome. It is ammoral in that it doesn’t concern itself with “human approval.”
It exists in the same way that the processes of gravity occur regardless of whether we approve of that tree falling on the cute, little fluffy bunny or not.
In this way gravity is also ammoral. Human beings can make “moral judgements” concerning the processes of gravity, and we can use our understanding of gravity for human intentions, but gravity itself, has no human agenda.
Natural selection exists whether we approve of it or its outcomes as well.
Human beings can make moral judgements about it and can use their understanding of natural selection for human intentions. (artifical selection, eugenics), but natural selection itself doesn’t require or seek human approval.
Natural selection determines “fitness” according to which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits.
It works on the whole individual, but only the heritable component of a trait will be passed on to the offspring, with the result that favorable, heritable traits become more common in the next generation.
Favourable or inheritable traits are those which enhance the survival of the species.
And what WE might consider as favourable traits is not taken into consideration.)
I have explained some of this here:
Natural Selection VS Artificial Selection
RE: humans killing each other
Human beings do kill each other regardless of their belief or disbelief in a god even though various god beliefs speak against killing (except under special circumstances.)
It is the “except under special circumstances” which I find interesting, as I think this mirrors our innate genetic prescriptors.
In other words, we have the propensity to kill each other because it is part of our genetic code.
Somewhere along the line, it must have been a genetically advantageous trait which is still able to be expressed genetically.
My thoughts on this is that individually, some of us may be more genetically programmed to be aggressive, or altruistic, or any of the multitudinous human behaviours and traits which may have their origin and prescriptors in our genetic makeup.
Killing is part of the natural world, and it may be part of our genetic prescriptors, but of course, it doesn’t mean that we, individually or collectively, would automatically approve of the expression of this trait under all circumstances.
As, human beings, we are conscious of our propensities, so we create codes of conduct.
These codes of conduct do not deny the existence of these propensities, (which we may find immoral or unfavourable; but these codes seek to formulate situations and circumstances when such behaviours are considered favourable.
It is through the creation of these codes of conduct that we seek to place these proclivities within a human societal construct which will “benefit the hive” or “benefit the group.”
There is also this false assumption that natural selection will provide us with traits that we, as humans would consider favourable.
For example: Intelligence may NOT be considered a prerequisite for human survival, as there is plenty of evidence of many successful species, (from a numbers point of view), to suggest that intelligence, though we may consider it favourable, is not automatically a necessity for survival of a species.
RE: codes of conduct
Religion provides one of these codes of conduct which seeks to place these natural proclivities within a human societal construct which will benefit the group.
The question for behavioural geneticists is:
Do these human created codes of conduct merely mirror the human traits which are already being expressed genetically?
I can’t state definitively that they do, but I highly suspect it to be so.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Constructive discussion between Christians and atheists, of course, just like you and soulster.
I’ve explained my purpose in these comments more than adequately. I’m trying to help you fulfill your stated goal.
So you have a blog for idiots and one for good discussion. I see.
Good!
You can think what you will, and so can others. This is what free speech and rational discussion is about. Reason and persuasion are utilized. Far from trying to poison any well, I’m trying to make it clean so the highest possible amount of people can enjoy the well and drink from it.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
I left this comment on the other page and am going to leave it here as well.
I wasn’t offended. I just find it a strange question. As if there is the assumption, (which obviously there is by the framing of the question), that atheists cannot be “good.â€
As an atheist, I realise that theists claim the moral high ground and believe that it is only through belieiving in a god, but specifically THEIR god, that “goodness†can be conferred.
So, the question seems to be one of: “I believe that only theists can be good, but I am willing to let atheists provide an argument for their ability to be good, which I can reject if it doesn’t comply with premise number 1.
(Premise number 1 states that only believers can be “good.â€)
In other words, the framing of the question has an inbuilt bias.
If I framed the question as : “Can theists be good?†The question would also have an inbuilt bias.
It is a little bit like the words “intelligent designâ€. The words themselves assume a designer.
The question, “Can atheists be good?†assumes the position that they can’t.
Having got that out of the way, I will suggest to you that my lack of a belief in a god deters me from a desire to kill others.
(I am not assuming that this is the same for all atheists, in the same way that I would not assume that belief in a god deters all people from killing either.)
I think that this life is all I have. I don’t believe there is a life after death, or any judgement outside of a human judgement.
Because I think that this life that I am living is all I have, consequently, I think that your life is all you have also.
I cannot convince myself that it is feasible to kill others and that “god will sort them out afterwardsâ€, or that human beings will go on to a better life from which they will escape the perils, hardships, or tribulations of this one.
Nor do I believe that they wil go on to a life where they will reap the rewards according to the life they have led while living. So, I am unconvinced that the killing of them would send them either to a place where they will be punished forever, or to a place where they will be rewarded forever.
Therefore, I cannot be convinced that their death will provide them with anything except death.
Because I don’t believe that they go to a better or a worse place, and that they simply cease to exist as human beings, I would be taking from them their ONLY chance at life.
And it IS a chance at life. It was “chance†based on probabilities, (not randomness in the sense that anything was possible), that means I am here today.
I am based on the probabilities associated with the fertilization of my mother’s egg with my father’s sperm. (This is not to be confused with the idea of randomness defined as chaos, or that anything was possible, as conception is not random in this sense, but based on probabilities.)
So, I am here typing away because of the probabilities associated with my conception.
Millions of sperm died which were unsuccessful. One was susccessful and I am the result of that biological success.
Hundreds of my mother’s eggs were not fertilized. I am the result of the successful egg. (This is what I mean by chance - probabilities.)
The same process occurs in all mammals. Hundreds of eggs are unsuccessful and millions of sperm are unsuccessful.
Regardless of this high rate of attrition, I am here, as are thousands of other mammals here due to the same biological process.
I value my own existence, so I realise that potentially, others also value their existence.
It is mutually beneficial for me to value the existence of others in the same way that I value my own existence, as I can increase my own chances of survival by being cognizant of the value that other people also attach to their lives.
My genetically scripted code towards empathy allows me to do this.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Remember, the post under which this discussion is occurring has to do with how atheists are shabbily treated by some (probably many) Christians.
I am simply dealing with the related problem on the other end of the spectrum (just as you and soulster did when you began this blog): how I feel that Christians are shabbily treated by some (probably many) atheists.
I offered the offensive photograph as an example. You think it is better to leave the picture up. So there is nowhere else to go with this. I thought it was good and helpful advice. You didn’t. We (and our fellow atheists and Christians at large) still have to learn to accept each other on a personal level and learn how to intelligently interact despite that disagreement and many others, right?
November 27th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
RE dave:
None of us have a right NOT to be insulted. I recognise this. You might consider this yourself.
I realise that religion and god belief has received special privileges over the centuries where to question the existence of a god, or the words of scripture, or religion, have been met with decisive and exacting punishment.
Certainly blasphemy laws were enacted for this very purpose, so that criticism of religious beliefs would be curtailed.
I don’t see this as intellectually or morally healthy as beliefs, even religious ones, should be open to discussion and enquiry.
I don’t accept that any belief is sacrosanct. (free from enquiry or criticism)
But, I do think that how we question beliefs is important. So, it might be preferred that we act with sensitivity concerning other people’s beliefs, but it is not mandatory that we do so.
If you find something offensive, you may claim it as your right to complain about it. But don’t forget that the same right can be enacted by anyone who does not agree with your beliefs as well.
Thousands of muslims have complained bitterly that they were insulted by various satirical cartoons which depicted their god in a less than favourable light.
I don’t think they have the right to NOT be insulted either.
It may be counter-productive to deliberately insult people, but I do not agree that by default, beliefs should be granted immunity from insult.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Dave,
You’re correct, of course. It’s a difficult process, but I believe it is the process itself that matters.
Seeing it from your side, it does make sense, and I recognize this. It’s an excellent example, but I believe that we’re going to have to learn to work around it.
While I may still have reservations, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I do feel that you entered this discussion with an axe to grind as large as mine when we first met, but you are willing to dialogue. This can hopefully be only for the best.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
beepbeep (does anyone have a real name around here!?) wrote:
I didn’t see it that way at all. soulster is obviously making an attempt to counter certain false and widespread Christian assumptions about atheists. The title was rhetorical and directed against those falsehoods, not intended to agree with them (as the paper itself shows beyond doubt).
To me, as I read it, the implied rhetorical reply would be, “yes, of course.”
In similar fashion, the title of my similar paper was “Are all Atheists Utterly ‘Wicked and Evil’?” The implied rhetorical reply was, “no, of course NOT.”
The titles themselves are intended as reductio ad absurdums and comments on the false notions unfortunately prevalent.
Soulster can speak for himself, as to his intent and meaning, but I think he would agree with what I’ve written here, and I’m trying to show how another Christian perceived his title and what he was trying to get at.
He thinks that the denial that atheists can be good is a “fallacy” — as he stated in the post itself in the third paragraph (second quote box).
Or, more specifically, he declared as a “fallacy” your statement describing the belief of some Christians, which included the following:
“. . . therefore those who do not believe in god, must be immoral evidenced by their stated lack of belief.”
He denies this; so do I, and I would go further and say it is self-evidently false, both from the Bible itself and observation.
There are further discussions, from a theological standpoint as to what exactly being “good” entails and so forth, but I don’t want to get into that. I think we are all assuming for our purposes here, a general viewpoint of the “good” and “bad” human being, based on common (not technically theological) usage. The Bible itself habitually does this, by the way, in its wisdom and poetic literature (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes, etc.).
November 27th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Beepbeepitsme:
Thanks for the links. Should be interesting reading.
No, I wasn’t implying that we can or should somehow guide natural selection. Nor was I getting into any issues of artificial selection. What I was saying was that we cannot merely justify a behavior because it has evolved.
You can easily move from saying morals are evolved to saying any evolved behavior is moral. If we look to our closest evolutionary relatives, they may not exhibit behavior we should repeat simply because it has evolved (like killing babies of sexual rivals, with has been happening a bit in NYC lately). Humans seem to have trouble with what’s natural for us and what’s good for us. We draw an artificial distinction between ourselves and nature as if human behavior is not natural and vice versa. Then, we draw an artificial line judging as a society that saying certain things are not good is not natural. But isn’t it natural for humans to make such ethical judgements as part of being human? My agruement is that even if someone started a behavior they claim has evolved naturally, and given evidence of that behavior in an animal, I would not, just based on that, say it was ethical.
But you seem to echo my point when you say:
So, no matter. But I am still curious about a few things, which you may answer in reference to yourself or in generalities:
1) Do you think atheists should participate in actively forming such “codes of conduct” — as has been done in the past to determine a structure, narrative, or system of when behaviors are favorable or not — or should atheists be passive and allow codes of conduct to be constructed from our genes through the functioning of culture, etc (which would probably means similar codes related to religions, as has ‘evolved’ from our genes in the past according to this and the theory of evolutionary origins of religion)?
2) If you see a need for such codes of conduct, how would you recommend one be formed outside a religious tradition/culture? (I.e. what axioms? what process?)
3) If you do not see a need for such “codes of conduct,” how do you respond to injustice, pain, violence, war and other things many would label as “problems”, since they seem to have evolved as part of human behavior?
Again, I think you’re presenting wonderful information on a theory about the origins of morality, but I’d like to know more than origins.
I’m having a hard time asking these questions. I would like some insight into whether you think atheists should be involved in the process of developing codes of conduct (since humans are probably constantly doing this and the news would seem to confirm the process going on in our culture right now). And, if so, how you would you suggest we do this without reference to belief.
This isn’t intended to be a trap as if I’m saying morality isn’t evolved somehow. Many Christians have grown up with the idea that morality was exclusively dictated by God. They’ve been taught all the ethics of our country is based on the Ten Commandments. So you will understand their difficulty in imagining the thought process involved in developing ethical principles outside of faith. To the believer, they are often simply given to us and become a “no da!” that you would have to be insane not to agree with (this is not my position).
While I think I have a decent idea about how it’s done without faith, I would rather someone who is not a Christian explain it. It would probably be more accurate if an atheist, or better, a few, would talk about it to enlighten those who think atheist means a person without ethics or morals or any concern for limiting evil in the world, their own or others.
Please let me know if this is not making sense. What Aaron Kinney has done in the post above is what I’m looking for. For him, “self-ownership” is a/the key axiom of all ethics. It could be “enlightened self-interest” for others. Just show us what it looks like for you.
November 27th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
[how do you make a quote box?]
I don’t have to consider it because it’s already what I believe. I made it very clear that my comments transcended the mere legalistic framework of “rights” and “coercion” and so forth.
That said, it remains relevant (particularly in a discussion of how atheists and Christians can best get along and converse) that certain things are insulting and not conducive to such desired harmonious relations.
If you can’t see that as anything beyond the usual politico-legal language and discussion of rights and victims and all that, then the fault lies in your limited paradigm, not my point as it stands.
Good discussion, like good marriage is not governed by lawyers and legal rights and detailed regulations, but by freely-offered love towards the other, or in discussion, the charity of the benefit of the doubt and accorded minimal respect to the other for the sake of peace and progress. Putting a crucifix in urine doesn’t fulfill that end; sorry.
There is no equivalent that a Christian can do to an atheist, because you have no sacred symbols that I am aware of. What would they be? Desecration of a statue of Thomas Paine (who was a deist, not an atheist)? It’s silly to even think about. But the Christian is an easy target because we have many well-known sacred symbols. Indeed, we worship Jesus Christ. You guys don’t worship anything (except perhaps reason, in an “Enlightenment” sense), so we can’t mock you in this way.
There’s the legal language again. You can’t get beyond that: “privileges” / “punishment.”
What does that remotely have to do with anything I wrote, pray tell?
And what did I write that remotely disagrees with that? Or are you not talking specifically to me here?
Good; me neither. I fail to see how putting a crucifix in human waste and taking a picture and pretending that this is “art” has anything to do with “enquiry” or “criticism.” I fail to see or comprehend how any atheist could possibly think that this would promote better, mutually-respectful discussion between atheists and Christians.
“Mandatory” is again the language of legalism and rights. I am going beyond that to ethics or even simple prgmatism.
I said nothing about rights! This gets so wearisome! We’re discussing how Christians and atheists can best get along. If you care little about what offends us, then chances are you’re not the type of person who will likely have constructive discussions with us. That’s just how reality works; like it or not.
You’re free to critique anything I’ve written that you think harms Christian-atheist dialogue. If you said it was offensive or potentially offensive to you and by extension possibly many atheists, I would probably remove it, since I recognize that turning people off and offending them will not lead to the good discussion that I desire. That’s not a matter of “rights” but of rudimentary respect one toward another, regardless of creed, color, etc.
Yes; and I would take exactly the same position: those who do this ought to voluntarily refrain from it (as opposed to passing laws of censorship), just as everyone recognizes it as inappropriate for someone to, e.g., engage in sexual acts during a movie in a theatre or some such (even if all adults were present), or defecate on the stage, or other similarly ridiculous act (in that context). Certain things are inappropriate, and this can change according to the audience or recipient. Is this not utterly obvious?
Great; I get that. I’m talking much more about “counter-productive” acts, arguments, and strategies. On that we can, if nothing else, hopefully agree.
November 27th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Exactly Dave. By the way, it’s Benjamin Scott Cheek.
November 27th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Dave,
You’ll want to use <blockquote> </blockquote> tags. If you want, I can amend your past comments to have the quote boxes.
November 27th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Thanks re: quotes. No need to change the posts unless you just want it to look nicer for your blog or something. If so, thanks for that extra work.
November 27th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Sorry, beepbeepitsme. You posted as I was writing. In your explanation of atheism leading you not to kill, you did exactly what I was looking for. More of the same please.
Dave, use <blockquote> and </blockquote> to make a quote box.
November 27th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
You…guys…are…commenting…too…fast…for…me….
November 27th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Aaron (all the way at #21), or anyone else. If “self-ownership” is a/the central axiom, what do you should be done if self-ownership is violated? Is there a standard by which to gauge the response, etc.?
Also, how do you provide an ethic for when a third party’s self-ownership is violated, such as in the case of injustice against the oppressed?
November 27th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Dave,
If I get the time, I might clear them up so it’s clear for other readers. I do think it’s true that
However, when one does not speak out of a fear of offending someone else, then we are reduced to self-censorship and extreme political correctness. Not all ideas are equal, and political correctness and its counterpart of cultural relativism imply that you cannot poke fun of Islam, or even make an argument against a false claim without all manner of people raising a stink.
I do believe that we must reach a point where we recognize that from the atheist’s standpoint, the earth isn’t flat, it’s sad that it offends people, but we need to move to a different level of discussion.
Although I admit, while poking fun of flat-earthers doesn’t help solve the problem, it can be very satisfying.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:12 am
You mean the earth ain’t flat????!!!!!!
I’m CRUSHED.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:17 am
Hah! I’m sorry I was the one to break it to you, Dave.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:53 am
Does this question have an inbuilt bias?
“Can theists be good?”
How about this? -
“Can theists ever be expected to join the real world?”
(Get my drift?)
November 28th, 2006 at 1:32 am
Dave:
If you believe as you espoused, that no one has the right to NOT be insulted, I really don’t know what you are going on about.
I may find religious people bashing at my door trying to convert me to the worship of the almightly “holy grail and holy python” to be insulting, but I usually deal with them in a polite manner.
I may find “in god we trust” to be insulting. Especially on money. Ugghh. That an omnipotent being would be happy advertising money, shampoo or garden equipment is beyond me.
However, I am under no obligation to treat people politely as long as my actions do not contravene law.
I am only obligated in a legal sense AND according to what benefit I may perceive if I respect the other person’s position, or how much empathy I may feel for the other person’s feelings.
Frankly, I am insulted every day by what some people do according to their religious beliefs. Or according to what they believe their religion espouses.
But, I do not have a right to be protected to NOT be insulted by this.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:13 am
No, but you obviously don’t get mine. the proper rhetorical question from an atheist designed to puncture through certain tendencies in atheist criticism of Christians, is:
“Can theists be smart?”
[your second proposed statement more closely approaches this]
It’s exactly the same dynamic. Many atheists think not, and so the question draws them in, out of curiosity if nothing else, to see how any atheist could possibly think an atheist was smart.
The same dynamic applies to political conservatives and pro-lifers and creationists: all are fashionably considered dumb and clueless simply by virtue of having these beliefs.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:15 am
Typo:
“. . . how any atheist could possibly think an atheist was smart.”
should be:
“. . . how any atheist could possibly think a theist was smart.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:45 am
I would prefer a question without prejudice or bias. Especially if people are intent on conducting their discussions in goodwill.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Ok. So the question sucks. It has an inbuilt bias because I was trying to use the inbuilt bias of some theist to get them to read this post. Notice, however, that my acutal questions at the end of the post are descriptive and do not hold a bias (I think), but rather are intended to debunk a common fallacy (namely the fallacy of condemnation by association and the assumption that atheist are, by definition immoral) through description rather than arguement.
This is how I really feel about the question as posted on the “How to Talk to Atheists” post:
Perhaps it’s time to talk about renaming the post if it’s still a problem. My intent has never been to answer such a stupid question as “can atheist be good”, but use it as a hook of sorts like any newpaper headline so the real questions could be asked.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Everyone, I think we’ve been flogging a dead horse long past the time a good beating would be necessary. Dave Armstrong and beepbeep both brought up important issues in their own right, soulster and I have both addressed them, but they’re not central to the topic at hand. I think it’s time to get back on track.
Now, what did everyone think of the content of the post?
November 28th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Drunkentune,
You are absolutely correct. My mistake for being too aggressive. Id like to take this moment to apologize to you and Soulster for coming off too strong. I guess that whenever I see Frank Walton spouting off the way he does, it gets me going. As a guest at you and Soulster’s blog, I am happy to abide by your rules. I will try my best to watch myself. If I ever get too heated again, dont hesitate to let me know
True. It comes down to whether or not you want to save the dog; what your values are. But what person does not empathize with the suffering of another creature? If I hear of the tragic death of a complete stranger, I cannot help but feel sorrow, because I relate to him as a fellow conscious entity. In emergency situations, I feel confident that my moral system can perform more than adequately, and I invite any and all challenges or examples presented to me so that I may defend the logic and effectiveness of my moral system.
In the burning dog case, it comes down to values, as I said earlier. In fact, in any emergency situation similar to this one, a split second judgement is typically made weighing the risks vs. the benefits (danger to oneself vs. satisfaction of helping another sentient being). In a consent-based individualist moral system such as mine, there IS a personal rewuard for helping strangers. It feels GOOD to help strangers and receive the gratitude and sense of accomplishment. So in the burning dog case, as long as Im not at too great a risk of catching fire myself, I would happily offer assistance to the dog. In return, I will get the appreciation of a job well done, and the gratitude of the dogs owner, and maybe even a lick on the face from the dog itself (once it heals). Is that not incentive enough?
Ahhhh, that good old word “altruism.” But if there is benefit to be had by the individual himself, then it isnt really altruism. For example, lets imagine that I am married and that I am in a situation where I have to either let my wife die or sacrifice my own life for my wife. If I love her enough then I would happily sacrifice myself so that she may live. In that si