Or for that matter, why is altruism "better" than selfishness?
Posted on 12/18/2014 7:35:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Creating their own religion,LOL
I often wonder, When the atheist kidnappers of Madalyn Murray O’Hair came for her with the strangling cords, chainsaw and sledge hammers, were her last words...”OH MY GOD!”
And even the concept of one virtue being “better” than another
REQUIRES
an objective standard.
I used to be an atheist, but at least I was an honest atheist.
I had concluded that, since I had no real evidence of not just a God, but of anyone else but myself, that I must be the only really important thing in my life. So I set about living for myself, and only followed whatever rules I didn’t feel that I could get away with breaking. If I could break them without consequence, to get or do something that I wanted, I would do it. Why not, if there was nothing higher than myself to judge me?
So when atheists tell me they can be moral without God, I know they simply haven’t followed their philosophy through to its logical conclusion. They are still restraining themselves based on their social conditioning, or some other remnant of their previous non-atheist thinking.
Exactly. If there is no supreme moral force in the universe then words like good, evil, right and wrong have absolutely no meaning. It all devolves to individual opinion. And if it makes me happy to rape you and then cut out your liver and eat it - who’s to say your opinion is more important than mine.
"We love because he first loved us." - I John 4:19. It's not a divine reward; it's a human response to divine grace.
Moreover, there is an illogical assumption here, that "good" is measured in percentage terms: by this measure, Mr. Atheist is "good" because he (presumably) helps the poor and doesn't murder anyone, which outweighs any "not good" things he might have done. Practically every religion agrees, from Osiris weighing the heart to the Hindu/Buddhist idea of karma, and so Mr. Atheist is correct in pointing out that there is no need for the divine in those religions.
Every religion, that is, except Christianity. Christianity starts by asserting that perfection is the only acceptable level of goodness, that "good enough" is not good enough, and then asserts the obvious, that by that definition, no one is good enough, that humans are on their own incapable of anything good, meaning anything perfect. Accept that assertion, and Christianity is the only solution.
If the atheist wishes to argue that "good enough" is good enough, then we can have a level-ground debate. Otherwise, Mr. Atheist is arguing against a straw man, the presumption that Christians are commanded by God to do good in order to obtain a divine reward.
“Or for that matter, why is altruism “better” than selfishness?”
Because, when we are altruistic, we reflect the love that God has for us on to others, and, in doing so, prove ourselves better than the animals. Selfishness is simply following our baser instincts, and leaves us in the same moral condition as a pig or an ape.
When right and wrong are defined individually,
all that is left is who has the ability and will
to force their definition on others.
Funny stuff! “WE are here to challenge you to think for yourself.” Such reminds me of the ‘goth’ kids who try so hard to show they are not like everybody else by dressing the same as each other.
C.S. Lewis:
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?
If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it?
A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own.
But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies.
Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless -I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.”
Said logical conclusion is what Freud described as the id. But there are of course restraining factors. The question is, where did those factors originate from? I could say that our natural instincts are to avoid being expelled from the tribe. That’s the superego. This is completely different from the wisdom that comes from God, however. Atheists can’t understand it because they refuse to experience it.
How absolutely pitiable is the wrath that awaits them. And, they are completely without excuse.
I have just finished a book by Douglas Ell entitled Counting to God. He is a graduate of MIT in math and physics, and is now a practicing attorney. His analysis based upon mathematical probability and accepted scientific theory (e.g., The Big Bang Theory) makes for a compelling argument for the existence of God, or as he also refers to it, wonder. Read his book and The Reason for God by Timothy Keller, and most unbelievers, who are honest with themselves, will come to the RATIONAL conclusion that there is a God.
Bingo. You can’t even make a logical case for “right” or “wrong” without an objective standard, and the only objective standard that is sensible must come from an intelligence outside of humanity.
Plenty of atheists have tried to make such a case, but their arguments are easily deflated.
Atheism is a faith. It is a religion. It is just a self-centered religion that gives thanks to no one but themselves. They do not have all the answers; they are just arrogant enough to think they do.
I hear of a person who responded to one who claimed, “There is no right or wrong” very simply. He said, “Is that right?” The other person had nothing to say...
Exactly. And why is altruism "good?" If as they want, I am simply relying on my own subjective knowledge and judgements, there certainly is no objective standard of "good." Why would an atheist even make an appeal that there are knowable standards of good (and therefore, evil?) It destroys their entire argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.