Polemics

Psychology Today features atheists who think that they are moral

22 Comments

I noticed that someone had posted a link to me from this post, so I left the comment below. (I made a few tiny changes below, but it’s basically the same as what I submitted). So far, the long comment has not been published, probably because it was mean, snarky and TOO LONG! So, I’ll show the comment below, but first here’s a word about the post itself. I left a new comment linking to this post, and we’ll see if that one stays up. I understand why they would not approve my comment, if they don’t – and so will you when you read below.

The post on Psychology Today

Notice the title “The Many Voices of the Happily Godless”. It shows two things about morality on atheism. One – that there is safety in numbers. Atheists get their standard of right and wrong from watching other people. That’s why they hate religion and want it banished from the public square, and why they resent Christians voting. They think that right and wrong is decided by counting votes, just like in Nazi Germany or pre-abolition England. So long as lots of people agree, then whatever the society decides is right for them, e.g. – abortion. Cultural relativism.

Second, the purpose of life on atheism is not to be a good person – there is no such thing as good and evil on atheism. They are trying to be happy. So they can define abortion as “good” and “moral” because murdering the weak isn’t wrong so long as it makes them happy. That’s what they mean by morality – what a person chooses to do in order to have feelings of happiness. The very concept of doing something because it is RIGHT, independently of what anyone thinks – as with abolitionists and pro-lifers and defenders of children’s rights with respect to traditional marriage – is foreign to them. (I know that some atheists are pro-life, but most aren’t!)

So they basically re-invent an accidental universe and an ethic of subjective selfish hedonism and then call that “morality”, even though it is the complete opposite of morality. And then they cloister together in the ivory tower with a few sheltered social studies majors who agree with them, read only the New York Times, and watch only MSNBC, listen only to NPR, and then titter nervously to each other about the immoral masses who think that unborn children have a right to life that trumps the “right” to have irresponsible sex and then escape the (financial) consequences of their own risky behavior.

That’s atheist “morality”. There is no objective right and wrong, and no rational argumentation about morality – morality on atheism is an illusion, as atheist Michael Ruse says. You can do anything that you are powerful enough to do in order to have good feelings. Because you can. And you try to pass laws and elect candidates to silence anyone who makes you feel bad for being selfish. And if people disagree with you, then you use the law to silence them, as at the University of Calgary with the pro-life students.

I am not saying that atheists MUST do evil, I am saying that the only reason they have not to do evil is because they can gain pleasure or avoid pain. And that is not morality, that’s just self-interest. Hedonism.

The comment I left that they did not publish

So anyway, I left the comment below and it didn’t appear. I wrote this in a single long edit and didn’t spell-check it or proof-read it before I hit post. This is from the hip, so I hope it makes sense to you.

—-

It’s not like this is even a close debate, by the way. The concept of rationally-grounded prescriptive morality is totally alien to an atheistic worldview.

1) There are no OBJECTIVE moral values on atheism, moral values independent of what humans think

2) There are no OBJECTIVE moral duties on atheism, moral duties independent of what humans think

3) There is no effective MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY on atheism, especially for powerful committed atheists like Stalin who can escape detection and consequences

4) There is no libertarian free will on atheism, due to materialism and biological determinism. You need the ability to choose in order to make MORAL CHOICES.

5) There is no ultimate significance to our actions on atheism, which undermines the rationality of self-sacrificial moral behavior when it goes against self-interest.

Self-interested hedonism is not “morality”, it’s self-interested hedonism. See the difference? You are not going to get people sacrificing their happiness for the lives of others on atheism, as with Christian abolitionists like William Wilberforce, because self-sacrifice is not rational on atheism. Self-interested hedonism is rational on atheism. The only reason to do anything on atheism is because it makes you feel good or to escape punishment from your society. That’s not morality, it’s the law of the jungle. Morality is sacrificing your life to free slaves when it gives you no feelings of happiness to do so, because you believe that every human being was born with a right to life, and a duty to know God personally.

Atheists can say the words “I’m moral” but what they mean is “I conform my behavior to my own personal preferences or to my society’s arbitrary fashions in this time and place when it coincides with my selfishness or when I am sure I won’t caught”. There is no real way we ought to be on atheism. The universe is an accident and so are we. Doing what makes you happy is not morality – it’s selfishness. Morality means doing the right thing, especially when it goes against your self-interest. But in an accidental universe without design, there is no way we ought to be. You do what you can get away with. That’s atheist “morality”.

And that’s why atheistic communists murdered 100 million people in communist regimes last century, tens of millions more with abortion, and tens of millions more on environmentalist overpopulation fads like banning DDT. Just look at the arguments and count the bodies. If you can’t ground an objective right to life, then these things are possible. Killing those who diminish your happiness is consistent with atheism – survival of the fittest. It is NOT consistent with the teachings of Jesus – love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you.

Atheism is a psychological disfunction that results when a person jettisons the demands of their conscience because they want to pursue pleasure in an unrestrained way, or because they expect God to make them happy and he doesn’t. That’s how people become atheists – it’s just immaturity. Atheists invent unscientific myths like the steady-state universe, the multiverse, aliens causing the origin of life, materialist conceptions of mind, unobservable pre-Cambrian fossils, etc. later, in order to disguise the pre-rational rebellion against God and the demands of the objective moral law. The whole point of atheism is to create an excuse for immoral, self-interested hedonistic behavior.

—-

I wrote a series of posts a while back in which I suggested 13 questions that you can use to understand WHERE atheists are coming from when it comes to morality. I also defined the minimal requirements for objective, rational, prescriptive morality, and explained why none of the requirements are grounded rationally by atheism, but ALL are grounded by Christian theism.

Lastly, you can look at just a few reasons why God exists, and some responses to just a few common objections.

A few reasons for Christian theism

Responses to a few common objections to Christian theism

Some debates on God and morality

22 thoughts on “Psychology Today features atheists who think that they are moral”

  1. There’s a reason they wouldn’t publish it – it’s filled with innacuracies bordering on lies.

    Then you ignore the fact that your very arguments contradict something Plato and Socrates argued millenia ago – he/they seperated the need for god and morality. So unless you can out argue Plato/Socrates, and from what I’ve seen with your arguments, you can’t, no scientific site like Psychology is going to post extremist arguments with no basis on reality.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I’m sorry that you are angry, but I did say that not all atheists act evil, just that they have no reason not to. And when push comes to shove, it’s better to have reasons to be good.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I think your comment was awesome. I can understand why it wasn’t published as secularists often suppress voices of dissent from their worldview. It’s par for the course of being a secularist (along with the usual condescension, insults, and general snide behavior towards theists).

        To me this behavior is extremely validating as these people fit the description given of them in the Bible to a tee. It’s a pretty amazing thing to see.

        Thanks for standing up for the truth, Wintery Knight. Please never back down. I am very proud of you.

        wgbutler777

        Like

        Reply

    2. So what you are saying is that Plato/Socrates is the standard? What if that doesn’t fit your moral view of things, can we jettison those two men? Or are they important because you want to use them to defend your scientific site?

      Like

      Reply

    3. Before I begin, by ‘Paradox’ I mean in the original Greek sense, that is “wrong opinion.” Jerry, please explain how WinteryKnight’s arguments are ‘lies’, or even ‘inaccuracies’. That you didn’t is rather telling, so I doubt I need to worry about so empty a complaint.

      You say that God and morality have been separated. I ask ‘how?’ and rightly so: all anyone is _really_ doing is parroting the Euthyphro Dilemma, and completely ignoring that we have answered it centuries before they ever made the argument. Unless you believe that Platonic Forms really do exist (with all the weirdness it implies), then it seems that you have struck out.
      Here’s why: ‘Morality’ is what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong. Judeo-Christian ethics state that God grounds what is objectively good and evil, because His nature is immutable; moral duties are so because God makes some acts of good obligatory (and this is because of His nature as well, mind you, so the Dilemma can’t rear its ugly head here either). What grounds morality in atheism? If it is something mutable (if there is anything _at_all_ grounding it), then morality is not objective. If it is something immutable, then we are back to the Platonic Forms.

      What you need to do then, it seems, is explain why we should accept the Platonic Forms as real.

      Like

      Reply

    1. Textual/historical evidence that Koran’s claims are true is lacking.

      Mohammed’s behaviour is appalling. Islam holds him up as a paragon.

      Conception of God in Koran is of a tribal potentate, a voluntarist God in the extreme. The God of the Koran is not self bound by reason. In other words the God of Islam is will/desire and not self limiting love.

      Like

      Reply

    2. Great question. You can’t settle it by comparing moral specifics. You have to appeal to some sort of testable claim.

      For example, you mentioned Islam. Islam thinks that Jesus never actually died on a cross (Surah 4:157). Are the Muslims correct in saying this? It’s a historical claim, so to history we must go.

      There is no credentialed historian of any stripe (atheist, agnostic, Jewish, etc.) who doubts the crucifixion. In fact, prominent atheist scholar E. P. Sanders of Duke University puts it on his list of almost indisputable facts about the historical Jesus.

      E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). Sanders lists eight “almost indisputable facts” which he takes as his starting point (p. 11):

      1. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

      2. Jesus was a Galilean who preached and healed.

      3. Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve.

      4. Jesus confined his activity to Israel.

      5. Jesus engaged in a controversy about the temple.

      6. Jesus was crucified outside of Jerusalem by the Roman authorities.

      7. After his death Jesus’ followers continued as an identifiable movement.

      8. At least some Jews persecuted at least parts of the new movement . . . .

      See now also E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993).

      And prominent Jewish, Professor of Religion Paula Fredriksen of Boston University says in this paper that “The single most solid fact we have about Jesus’ life is his death. Jesus was crucified. Thus Paul, the gospels, Josephus, Tacitus: the evidence does not get any better than this.”

      Sanders and Fredriksen are probably two of the best scholars on the historical Jesus in the world, and they are NOT Christians – they have no axe to grind. So Islam is false as false can be. The Koran cannot contain any errors – Muslims claim it is inerrant and its moral authority is lost if any error is found. But we’ve found a BIG ONE.

      Regarding Christianity, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christian morality should not be taken seriously either. Even Paul says that if the resurrection did not happen then Christianity, and Christian morality, is WORTHLESS. See 1 Corinthians 15:17-19. 1 Corinthians is one of the most early and reliable books in the New Testament. It is authored by Paul in 55 AD – and no scholars denies that. It’s genuine Paul. The creed in 1 Cor 15:3-7 is dated within 1 to 5 years of the Cross. By ATHEIST scholars like James Crossley and Christians.

      My advice is to watch some DEBATES between Christian and non-Christian scholars on the topic of the resurrection. You’ll find some linked in this post.

      Or just look here:

      Debates are a fun way to learn

      Three debates where you can see this play out:

      Or you can listen to my favorite debate on the resurrection.

      Not that I don’t think you have to be an inerrantist in order to be a Christian, so long as your claims of error are on solid historical ground. (I am an inerrantist – you don’t have to be to be a Christian – you just have to accept the classical creeds of Christendom)

      Hope this helps. Come on – I typed all this in. At least listen to the William Lane Craig versus James Crossley debate. Please?

      Like

      Reply

  3. The moral of the story of the Ring of Gyges is fine for atheists of the high church variety but it simply doesn’t take fallen human nature seriously. What Plato says is true of course, but Christian Theism explains fully why, you are not duty bound to abstract justice alone but to a personality that made you and has the power to grant eternal life of unqualified goodness if you have the stomach for it.

    Like

    Reply

  4. Way off the mark! “Atheists get their standard of right and wrong from watching other people.” Wrong! I feel it is innate for people to “do right”. For a person or society to exist and flourish, to continue on, it behooves us all to find a harmonious way of living together, to ensure a better standard of living for us all! A loving mother can empathize with another mother, who’s child is starving, etc…If your child or other loved one was in need, you’d hope that those who were able, would fulfill that need!!
    Why is it so difficult for the religiously inclined to understand or believe that someone without religious beliefs can have high moral standards?
    “Atheism is a psychological disfunction that results when a person jettisons the demands of their conscience because they want to pursue pleasure in an unrestrained way, or because they expect God to make them happy and he doesn’t. That’s how people become atheists – it’s just immaturity.” That has to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read! I suppose it has nothing to do with all the hypocrisy, contradictions, unbelievability and complete lack of evidence offered up by Religion in general!

    Like

    Reply

    1. Elinore,

      >>
      it behooves us all to find a harmonious way of living together, to ensure a better standard of living for us all!
      >>

      Where do you stand on casual sex and homosexuality? Is it moral or immoral? Keep in mind the millions who have died due to STDs, not to mention the millions of unborn children slaughtered in the name of convenience, when you provide your answer.

      >>
      A loving mother can empathize with another mother, who’s child is starving, etc…If your child or other loved one was in need, you’d hope that those who were able, would fulfill that need!!
      >>
      What is your theory on why religious conservatives are far more generous with their time, money, and other resources than secular humanists (including atheists) are? See the link:

      http://article.nationalreview.com/299466/who-really-cares/thomas-sowell

      for additional information.

      I do realize, of course, that many secularists are extremely generous with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY, especially when they themselves can directly benefit from it, but they tend to be really tight fisted when it comes to giving away their own resources.

      Thanks for your input.

      wgbutler777

      Like

      Reply

    2. It’s not difficult to understand that atheists can have high moral standards. You’re misunderstanding the argument if you’re thinking that we’re saying that atheists *can’t* be moral. It’s just that there’s no reason to adhere to, on atheism.

      On atheism there is nothing to ground those moral values in objectively, and so a mother who “lovingly” satisfies the needs of her hungry child is morally equivalent to the mother that lets her child starve. On atheism, humans are reduced to animals, running on basic instincts without free will, and as such any concept of morality is simply not part of the equation.

      Like

      Reply

    3. You say that it is “Innate for people to ‘do right'”, but the problem is not only immediately obvious, it is also two-fold: 1) Humans are paradoxical –in the English sense of the word (contradictory)– in that we are both naturally selfish, and naturally compassionate. This leads to the other fold: 2) You still need to explain what is right and wrong, or else this ‘innate feeling to do right’ is completely unfounded, rather than simply misconstrued.

      Religion in general? It seems to me that Judeo-Christian theism is the exception then! Not only do we have evidence (see the links at the bottom of the blog for the tip of the iceberg), but every single objection has been refuted, most of them centuries ago.
      Hypocrisy in religion: I concede the point, but it proves nothing about God.

      Like

      Reply

  5. Atheism is a psychological disfunction that results when a person jettisons the demands of their conscience because they want to pursue pleasure in an unrestrained way, or because they expect God to make them happy and he doesn’t.

    By your definition I’m an atheist; I didn’t arrive there down either of those paths; therefore your hypothesis is wrong.

    Like

    Reply

          1. Let’s try to stay on topic, shall we? If you’re disputing that my statement disproves “Wintery Knight”‘s theory, please state your case.

            Like

        1. Technically merkur, _everyone_ is born an atheist! That doesn’t answer the question. “What convinced you to stay an atheist, after you developed a concept of God?” Does that rephrase the question?

          You said to ‘stay on topic’ when pressed on why you are against abortion, but that question _was_ on topic! You need _some_ grounding for morality, or else morality is just an illusion to manipulate people. It seems to me that you either completely lack a reason (not surprising, really), or know that your reason is inconsistent with your atheism.

          I think you were right about WinteryKnight when you said he was wrong about at least some atheists. He should have used some other term, such as (to stick to a theme-word) “hedonism”. One can’t win them all, now can you?

          Like

          Reply

Leave a reply to merkur Cancel reply