Replies

In my case it wasn’t that the message was vague but that it was absurd. I tried to believe when I was younger because I thought that if you didn’t believe you were some kind of horrible person. I never could though. When I would ask questions that I thought the people should be able to answer they instead evaded them and told me I needed to have faith.

During my 20’s I continued to try and be a good Christian because that is what I had been indoctrinated with by the people I had grown up around. I prayed and prayed and suffered. As I got older, I examined the fundamental principles of Christianity and realized that they were wrong and that there was no rational basis to believe any of it. I eventually came to understand that it was all made up by men and I had never had to suffer with the anxiety all those years. On the day when I finally realized the truth, such a feeling of peace came over me. It was the feeling that had been described to me but which I never felt when praying to Jesus. Now I am at peace and I enjoy knowing that the world makes sense and I do not have to go through life begging forgiveness for an unearned guilt. And no I don’t think my life has no purpose or I can do anything I want to. I hear that all the time from Christians. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think this world is wonderful and so much is open to me to achieve and learn. I don’t believe I am evil by nature and need a moral code to keep me in check. I know that being moral is in my own rational interest and morality is a guide to help me achieve the best possible life.

I can’t speak for other atheists but so many on these forums seem to do just that. I just thought I would add my own experience.

You said "I don’t believe I am evil by nature and need a moral code to keep me in check.". So don't believe you are "evil by nature", but since you don't define what evil is, you have no yardstick to measure by. Without a standard, a way of determining what is good and what is evil, how can anyone say whether they are evil or good ?

You add in that you "don't need a moral code to keep me in check", which is, in truth, advocating having no laws. After all, if people don't need a moral code to keep them in check, that means everyone will do the right thing at all times. Well, perhaps not everyone, so perhaps you say a moral code is needed for some people, but not good, moral atheists like yourself. How can society know who needs to be subject to a moral code, and who will be moral without a code ? And, without a moral code, how would we know a moral action from an immoral one ?

Your next statement shows the naivete taught in our educational system: "I know that being moral is in my own rational interest". Very often people do things that further their own ends at the expense of someone else. If you know for sure that you can get away with stealing a little here and there from the government or some big company, and no one will ever find out, (just think of the tens of millions of people cheating on disability or welfare programs), then your own purely rational interest is well-served if you help yourself to what's not yours.

If someone drops $8,000 and you pick it up, and you know for a fact that they have no idea where they dropped it, and no one will ever know that you picked it up - if you just clam up and keep the money - you are ahead by $8,000. That's acting in "your own rational interest".

Where in this as yet unspecified and undefined "atheist's moral code" does it say that taking money that's not yours but just "falls into your lap" is wrong ?

By what standard do you gauge whether something is moral or immoral ?

OK I am ready to answer you now that I have had a chance to go over your post carefully. I’ll deal the first part of your post first.

You said: You said “I don’t believe I am evil by nature and need a moral code to keep me in check.”. So don’t believe you are “evil by nature”, but since you don’t define what evil is, you have no yardstick to measure by. Without a standard, a way of determining what is good and what is evil, how can anyone say whether they are evil or good ?

You add in that you “don’t need a moral code to keep me in check”, which is, in truth, advocating having no laws. After all, if people don’t need a moral code to keep them in check, that means everyone will do the right thing at all times. Well, perhaps not everyone, so perhaps you say a moral code is needed for some people, but not good, moral atheists like yourself. How can society know who needs to be subject to a moral code, and who will be moral without a code ? And, without a moral code, how would we know a moral action from an immoral one ?

OK. In the context of the bible evil would mean unfit for existence, since the punishment for sin is death. So according to the bible man in his fallen state is so wrong that he will die unless he changes his ways and not only die but be punished eternally. So I as an individual, am saddled from birth with this stain because of the actions of two people. I need to ask for forgiveness and atone for my sin or I will be burned in hell and be tormented for all of eternity. So by my nature I am unfit for existence. I would define evil as that which is wrong or harmful to man’s life. So according to the bible I am wrong by nature and my own nature is harmful to my life or evil.
When I said I didn’t need a moral code to keep me in check I was speaking to the nature of morality. Since I don’t believe I am unfit for existence from birth and need to be constrained from doing evil by the threat of punishment I view morality as a guide to help me choose the actions which will bring me the greatest happiness and success in life. What is a moral code and why do we need one. Morality is simply that which is right. Right for what, what is the standard by which we measure what is right? Well the standard depends on your purpose. Man is not like other creatures in that he has to choose his course of action in the face of many alternatives. So the primary choice, the one which precedes all others is does he want to live or to die. Since man has a fixed nature with fixed requirements for life that is the standard by which the good is decided on. So that which is harmful to man’s life is the evil and that which sustains man’s life as a human being in accordance with his nature is the good. The things which man practices to achieve the values he needs are virtues and the actions that harm his life are vices.
So a moral code of values is absolutely essential to every single man if he wishes to live and the standard to choose those values is his life and that which it requires according to his nature as man. Morality then is literally a matter of life and death. Laws are required in society because, unfortunately, some people choose death over life. The purpose of laws is to protect man’s rights and man’s life must be the standard of value used to determine what laws we put in place.

You said: Your next statement shows the naivete taught in our educational system: “I know that being moral is in my own rational interest”. Very often people do things that further their own ends at the expense of someone else. If you know for sure that you can get away with stealing a little here and there from the government or some big company, and no one will ever find out, (just think of the tens of millions of people cheating on disability or welfare programs), then your own purely rational interest is well-served if you help yourself to what’s not yours.

If someone drops $8,000 and you pick it up, and you know for a fact that they have no idea where they dropped it, and no one will ever know that you picked it up - if you just clam up and keep the money - you are ahead by $8,000. That’s acting in “your own rational interest”.

Where in this as yet unspecified and undefined “atheist’s moral code” does it say that taking money that’s not yours but just “falls into your lap” is wrong ?

By what standard do you gauge whether something is moral or immoral ?

OK, let’s look at this. The essence of your question is why shouldn’t I better my life by harming others whenever and where ever I can get away with it. Wouldn’t that be a neat trick to pull? The short answer is no.

To take your example of the dropped $8,000, what would be the essence of that action? It would be the attempt to gain or keep a value by fraud and force. The money is not mine by right. I didn’t earn it. It rightfully belongs to the other man unless he also stole it. Nothing can change that fact. Because reality exists independent of my thoughts and wishes, No matter how I might attempt to justify keeping the money, it will always be wrong. Would the money bring me any happiness? Not if my purpose is life. Say I took the money down and bought a new four wheeler. In your example you say that no one would ever find out but that is not true. I would know. Every time I used it I would know that I hadn’t earned it and it was not mine by right. If I bought food with it I would know with each bite that it was stolen. And there are much wider implications. How would I explain to my friends why I could suddenly afford four wheelers and lobster tails. Since reality is a consistent whole all facts are connected. I would be forced to lie about where the money came from, and then to concoct other lies to cover those lies until the truth would become my enemy and lying a virtue. If life and reality are my purpose then how can I achieve them by setting myself against reality? So the money could never be a value to me and nothing the money ever bought could be either. So the reason not to take the money is that it is not in my own rational interest. If I held that lying and cheating were a virtue and honesty a vice then what would my purpose be? What would I achieve by practicing those virtues and avoiding the vices of honesty and fairness? If I set myself against existence then what am I after? Do you think those people who cheat the welfare codes are happy or can ever be happy. No, they have forever cheated themselves from any chance at happiness or success. Ask yourself what their answer to that primary choice I talked about earlier is.

The principle involved is that honesty, the recognition of reality, is a virtue. The founders set this principle down in the declaration. They correctly recognized that man exists with certain inalienable rights. To violate any man’s rights is to violate every man’s including my own. So that is why fraud, rape, murder, stealing and all other forms of the initiation of force are wrong. It can never be in anyone’s rational interest to help themselves to what’s not theirs.