When I was answering the question who Cain’s wife was on a radio talk show, an atheist told me I was immoral for saying close relations married in early history. But can an atheist make that claim?
Secularists frequently accuse Christians of behaving “immorally” and religion of being “evil.” But such objections bring up an interesting question: how do secular humanists or atheists define evil and morality and by what authority do they make such statements?
For the atheist or secular humanist, there is no foundation for morality besides his or her own subjective opinion. These individuals often throw around words such as evil, immoral, moral, or ethical, often in the context of Christianity or Christian individuals. They will say things such as “religion is evil” or that teaching creation to children is “child abuse,” but what do they mean by these phrases?
In their worldview, what makes anything immoral or wrong? Really it boils down to nothing more than their opinion. They claim that something is wrong. But who is to say that their opinion is the right one? After all, there are many different opinions on what is right and wrong. Who decides which one is right and which one is wrong?
17 comments
how do secular humanists or atheists define evil and morality and by what authority do they make such statements?
Not all of us need your God to tell us what to do and not do. Some of us have this thing called empathy. I never needed anybody to tell me about any system of morality, I don’t like seeing others hurting or suffering in any way.
I recently was reading about rats (one of my favorite pastimes aside from hanging out with mine) and they don’t like hurting other rats. Instead they will help rats that are hurt or sick. More than I can say for some humans… anyway, Ken, do you think that rats the world over have read the Bible and decided to behave morally based on what a god that considers them evil in the first place wrote 2700 years ago? Or maybe, just maybe… it’s just that they have empathy and don’t like seeing their fellows suffering?
Just because you need a higher authority to tell you what to do doesn’t mean that everyone does…
It’s called “ethics” and “empathy”. It is a far superior approach to morality than slavishly following supposed divine degrees of an ancient society that is very, very different from our own (in which regards, you guys are, of course, mothing but posers - see the orthodox Jews with the Talmud and their kosher fridges etc. for people actually serious about maintaining Biiblical law into modernity rather than just cherrypicking the parts that support their own bigotry) - even disregarding how “divine morality” so often does not seem all that moral, actually, once you view it with some distance, or that it is not basing its authority on falsifiable (and indeed falsified) mythology, or the difficulty of properly understanding the perspective of texts written by and for a society so radically different from ours, it is able to deal with problems that were not covered by the ancient degrees (as even supposedly omnisicient, omnipresent, universal gods have a curious tendency to not go beyond the very limited scope of the primitive peoples with little knowledge of the world beyond their own region they revealed themselves to…) (without resorting to extreme shoehorning - again, see the orthodox Jews).
In my worldview, what makes something immoral or wrong is if the harm it causes/allows outweighs the benefits.
Or I ask myself, "What if this happened to me? Or to someone I care about? Would I approve or not?"
Ken, this question isn't the stumper you think it is
Now, morality can be a complicated thing. But that's usually when going into more specific instances instead of a general "Help others, don't murder people, do things that benefit yourself and others" sorta stuff. We don't need a stone tablet carved from a flame vortex to tell us that "Hurting people for self gratification is not an acceptable behavior." Social animals learn that quickly.
However, that sorta of deflection on Ken Ham's part (and the twatwaffles like him) not only avoid answering the question but don't realize that they often have things called out on them... by their own standards. The book of Job is a hallmark of horrifically immoral behavior for a supposedly all knowing and all loving God. Genesis is full of that sort of behavior. Remember, this is a God who can do all sorts of magical stuff, but his first thought to make a better world is an omnicidal flood that, in addition to slaughtering innocent children and unborn, did absolutely nothing to make the world a better place. Or how about the wholesale slaughter of people who were rude (The bears mauling 42 kids to death) or soldiers just doing their job asking Elijah go see the king as he asked (he killed 102 of them with magic fire from the sky!).
You could say "There weren't enough people, it was alright back then, just as in the past closer relationships have happened, especially with royalty. So while not "moral" it was a "needed" relationship." But no, you just say "Yeah? Well you're a stupid head."
@Tilver #176521
Remember, this is a God who can do all sorts of magical stuff, but his first thought to make a better world is an omnicidal flood that, in addition to slaughtering innocent children and unborn, did absolutely nothing to make the world a better place.
And who needed a group of eight, two of them old, to build a giant ship and gather samples of every sort of animal to ensure that life continues after the flood, rather than sparing them miraculously or creating new, less flawed life once the slate had been wiped clean (even more pressing considering how “Creation scientists” love to add all those other big Disaster Movie catastrophes, like all of geology playing out over the course of forty days and forty nights, to the Deluge based on passing references to what are clearly very pre-scientific conceptions of the workings of nature that the authors felt no need to elaborate upon…)…
Hambone, stop acting like you’re some great philosopher asking the “big questions”. You really aren’t. What you’re talking about is called “objective morality” and frankly a lot of philosophers far smarter and more educated than you (and probably of various religious backgrounds) are STILL debating wether objective morality could even possibly be a thing.
But to answer your asinine questions, it’s very simple really. I base my morality on wether or not my actions hurt fellow living beings. Wether emotionally or physically, I prefer not to cause any harm that I myself would not want to experience.
an atheist told me I was immoral for saying close relations married in early history.
That really makes no sense to me. Either said atheist was a dumbass, or Ken’s leaving some parts of the story out, or possibly he’s making the whole thing up. Because why would someone call YOU “immoral” for just saying what happened? That’d be like calling someone evil because they wrote a book about a serial killer.
This again (http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Phrases.xhtml ):
Good
Normal Person's Definition: “Beneficial.” In a social sense, it is usually that which is beneficial to society.
Fundie Definition: “Obedience to God.”
Evil
Normal Person's Definition: “Total disregard for the welfare and feelings of others.”
Fundie Definition: “Disobedience to God.”
The Cain's wife thing isn't just about her being his sister. While that is an issue. Its also that he was banished from his home and sent to wonder for the rest of his life. Why would this unnamed sister also leave their home. The question isn't her parentage, it's how she got where she was when Cain met her. Did Adam send one of his daughters with Cain as his mate? Did she leave on her own?
"an atheist told me I was immoral for saying close relations married in early history"
Misrepresentation of that sort is enough for me to stop reading the rest. Noone could make Ham exit his rabbit hole anyway, they can only attempt to help others to not be misled by his falsehoods. General education helps and that's why those who swim in disinformation want to destroy it.
Despite not reading the whole post, I enjoyed reading the comments.
@Creativerealms #176567
Particular note. The Bible only mentions Adam and Eve actually having 3 children. Cain and Abel, and, well, you know where that went. And later a son named Seth. No mentions of other sons, no mentions of any daughters.
I’ve long thought the original story was really not about how “humans” came to be, but a story about how a particular tribe came to be, in this one place of paradise where they were ejected from. After all, they wouldn’t be the first to write of their tribe being specially formed by their particular god, separate from all other peoples.
@KZadBhat #176577 not ammong them) were the sires of all nomads, all musicians, and all metalworkers despite the Flood terminating all bloodlines but Noah’s (keep in mind that, as far as the Bible is concerned, descent is STRICTLY patrilineal), etc. There are also all the little throwaway references that clearly serve to contextualise common idioms of the society within the mythos: Enoch, Nimrud, the Nephilim…
We have our reasons, usually stemming from altruistic and utilitarian philosophies. Most morals come from empathy and a desire to prevent harm to others, which in turn stems from a primal socialness that evolved so we wouldn’t immediately kill our offspring over a favourite stick.
Your BuyBull doesn’t condemn Slavery. Indeed: as far as your ‘God’ is concerned, it’s very Moral . A certain local hero - certainly Evangelical Christian - went against his own moral KJV preserved in his study in his home/museum by Hull City Council by being a successful Abolitionist. Question (check one):
[ ] Was William Wilberforce’s opinion right?
[ ] Was William Wilberforce’s opinion wrong ?
Choose wisely: as it’s not only your own opinion’s right to exist, depending on your decision.
When a Christian had no problem with admitting that his own Arbiter of Morality had wrong opinions, ergo…!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
