Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Can atheists be ethical?
Source:
CARM
URL Source: http://carm.org/can-atheists-be-ethical
Published: Nov 19, 2012
Author: Matt Slick
Post Date: 2012-11-19 14:54:50 by redleghunter
Keywords: None
Views: 11385
Comments: 28
The answer to this question is a definite "Yes." Atheists are people who, whether they like it or not, have the law of God written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15). They are subject to the same laws of our country (and other countries), and they have a sense of right and wrong. They often work with people who are religious and have ethical standards, as well as non-believers who are don't, so they are exposed to all sorts of moral behavior. In addition, they often form their own moral standards based on what suits them. Besides, things like robbery, lying, stealing, etc., can get you imprisoned, so it is practical and logical for an atheist to be ethical and work within the norms of social behavior. However you want to look at it, atheists, generally, are honest, hardworking people. Nevertheless, some Christians raise the question, "What is to prevent an atheist from murdering and stealing? After all, they have no fear of God and no absolute moral code." The answer is simple: Atheists are capable of governing their own moral behavior and getting along in society the same as anyone else. At the risk of labeling the atheist as self-centered, it does not serve the best interests of an atheist to murder and steal since it would not take long before he was imprisoned and/or killed for his actions. Basically, society will only put up with so much if it is to function smoothly. So, if an atheist wants to get along and have a nice life, murdering and stealing won't accomplish it. It makes sense for him to be honest, work hard, pay his bills, and get along with others. Basically, he has to adopt a set of ethics common to society in order to do that. Belief in God is not a requirement for ethical behavior or an enjoyable life. On the other hand Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But, they do live in societies that have legal systems with a codified set of laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However, since the legal system changes, the morals in a society can still change, and their morals along with it. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." In one century abortion is wrong; in another, it is right. So if we ask if it is or isn't right, the atheist can only tell us his opinion. If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill. This can be likened to something I call, "experimental ethics." In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it. Hopefully, these experiments lead to better and better moral behavior. But, as we see by looking into society, this isn't the case: crime is on the rise. There are potential dangers in this kind of self-established/experimental ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings? It serves his self-interests, so why not? Morality becomes a standard of convenience, not absolutes. But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based on the Bible, there is no guarantee that he will not also join forces in doing what is wrong. People are often very inconsistent, but the issue here is the basis of moral beliefs and how they affect behavior. That is why belief systems are so important, and absolutes are so necessary. If morals are relative, then behavior will be too. That can be dangerous if everyone starts doing right in his own eyes. A boat adrift without an anchor will eventually crash into the rocks. The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian. In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be constantly changing and subjective, and do not demand love, patience, and the welfare of others. Instead, since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution, is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self-serving. Basically, the atheist cannot claim any moral absolutes at all. To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad, but with human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's word -- and not on the subjective and changing morals that atheism offers.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
#10. To: redleghunter (#0)
(Edited)
I was banned at Liberty Post after comments on this very same thread title there. Seems Freedom of Speech is selective,...ie...don't mess with Israel/Jews....and Jesus. I'm not surprised.... Jews and Christians move in the Monsters of the ID [Movie Forbidden Planet],...format. But when you thought we were a threat. to your little egomaniac empire.... your subconscious sent its Id monster out again!
Seems Freedom of Speech is selective,...ie...don't mess with Israel/Jews....and Jesus. I'm not surprised.... It's that revered Jewish god taking out it's vengeance via one of it's agents on those it deems inferior, subversive or whatever, as the Jewish god seems tp be always on the rag. Don't worry since we are on the verge of becoming a theocracy, although I doubt Christ would approved of this version.
You know Hitler said similar things. Very similar.
He also put his pants on one leg at a time too. I bet you do that also. He accused the Jewish god of being on the rag? He was pretty hip for an old guy. No wonder he was the darling of the US capitalist class.
Was it Hitler or Redleghunter who killed some five or six million Jewish people in Concentration Camps?
Actually it was God who did the killing because nothing happens that isn't part of God's plan.... at least according to most evangelicals. But getting back to RLH, he superficially compared me to Hitler as a distraction because he couldn't argue against my statement, and I've never killed anyone. And you guys wonder why the world is starting to hold you in such low esteem.
Ming, first it is poor posting manners to not ping someone when talking about them. Will chalk that up to a mistake, we all make them. Second, I don't give reasoned responses to blatant invective statements and blasphemy. Using invective language proves a point in debating. It proves you have no fresh arguments and only have anger and insults to hurl. I on the other hand, used a historical example of Hitler's early writings and your statements. Hitler went into great tantrums about the "Hebrew" God, very much like you are doing.
You doth protesteth just a little too much. Calm down. The only anger showing here is coming from you when you run out of facts and have to resort to circular reasoning, And calling anything you disagree with "blasphemy" is such a great tool.
Using terms like "on the rag" is not debate. It is invective.
It's an apt description how the God of the Old Testament is portrayed. I should also include sociopathic and schizophrenic too. I can certainly see why current Christians seem to prefer the Old Testament to the New.
#26. To: mininggold (#25)
Give some examples for your theory, chapter and verse please.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#11. To: Parrot with speed dial (#10)
I was banned at Liberty Post after comments on this very same thread title there.
#14. To: mininggold (#11)
It's that revered Jewish god taking out it's vengeance via one of it's agents on those it deems inferior, subversive or whatever, as the Jewish god seems tp be always on the rag.
#15. To: redleghunter (#14)
(Edited)
You know Hitler said similar things. Very similar.
#16. To: mininggold (#15)
#17. To: Don (#16)
(Edited)
Was it Hitler or Redleghunter who killed some five or six million Jewish people in Concentration Camps?
#21. To: mininggold, Don (#17)
But getting back to RLH, he superficially compared me to Hitler as a distraction because he couldn't argue against my statement
#23. To: redleghunter (#21)
(Edited)
Second, I don't give reasoned responses to blatant invective statements and blasphemy. Using invective language proves a point in debating. It proves you have no fresh arguments and only have anger and insults to hurl. I on the other hand, used a historical example of Hitler's early writings and your statements. Hitler went into great tantrums about the "Hebrew" God, very much like you are doing.
#24. To: mininggold (#23)
#25. To: redleghunter (#24)
(Edited)
Using terms like "on the rag" is not debate. It is invective.
Replies to Comment # 25. It's an apt description how the God of the Old Testament is portrayed. I should also include sociopathic and schizophrenic too.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]