Moral without God?

Actually, the answer is yes. Now, this is not to say that we human beings always, in every single situation, make the moral decision. Of course we don't. But that fact doesn't make us inherently immoral(aka, inherently "evil") . IOW, the Christian philosophy sets up a false dilemma: It posits that since Adam & Co. ate the forbidden fruit, that this made them, and subsequently the rest of the human race, "inherently evil", a result of what it calls, "Original Sin".

This is fallacious reasoning, and it can be easily demonstrated to be fallacious reasoning by just reversing the situation. IOW, what would have happened had Adam and his accomplice not eaten the fruit? To be consistent, wouldn't we have to say that this would have made them inherently good? I think so. But yet, to say that we are "inherently" one way or the other flies in the face of free will, for if we were incapable of wrong-doing, we'd be the equivalent of robots programmed to never to do wrong. But of course, Christianity would have us believe that we are "inherently evil", and yet, look, we aren't incapable of doing "good". The inconsistency is glaring. But for the time being, let's move on to the supposed moral "standard"---the standard from which we supposedly fall short.

In a few short steps it can be demonstrated that the biblical standard of morality - that is, the morality that we're to be shooting for - is subjective.

If "wrong"(aka "sin") is defined as going against whatever God says, then right away we see that "wrong" is a relative thing, not an absolute thing. If "God" doesn't get his/her/its sense of "right"/"wrong" from an external source, but instead, IS the source, then whatever this God deems "good" at any given moment is completely arbitrary. This, BTW, is very dangerous. Think about it---if nothing prevents this God from waking up one day and deciding that slavery is "good", then from a theist POV, slavery is "good" if God says so. On the other hand, if there is something preventing this God from deciding that slavery is "good", then right away we see that there are values outside of/independent of this God to which he/she/it adheres. And for the record, I used slavery in my example because the bible condones slavery. If the apologetic(defense) is that this is Old Testament/Old Law, etc., and therefore such things are obsolete, then this is yet more compelling evidence that biblical morality is relative to the time, and in which case, it is not "objective", as the bible and Christians claim it is.

"BaNg!"

I would wager that, of all those who know me and follow my posts - both in the blogger world, and on Facebook - many would love to ask me the following question:

"So, Jeff, if you don't believe in hell, then why does it bother you so much when Christians raise the issue in conversation?"

First off, these people would be 100% correct in that I don't believe in "hell"(or "heaven", or gods/devils). True. There is not one iota of objective confirmation for any of it. Notwithstanding, I frequently discuss "hell" under the pretense that it exists, simply to make a few rhetorical points to those who do believe in it. Two of which points are:

1) believing a proposition simply because you're afraid to not believe it, is bankrupt from the get-go; it is not a good reason to believe something.

2) this whole concept that there is a place where people are kept alive and tormented with fire for all of eternity is an immoral concept, just as worshiping any being who implements and condones such a place is immoral.

Re: 1., I wonder if I should also be afraid of "Jahannum"(Islamic "hell")? Moreover, I wonder if Christians are afraid of "Jahannum"? Well, the answer to the latter, of course, is no---Christians are not afraid of Islamic hell. Why? because they don't believe in it, just as I do not believe in it. Would it be wise for those of us who don't believe in "Jahannum" to believe in it, just in case? The answer, again, is no......'no more wise than to sleep with the light on just in case the Boogieman is in your closet.

The point being, if you want me to worry about going to "hell", then you should know that all of your work is ahead of you, simply because you would first have to proffer some evidence that, a) our "personalities"(the closest natural explanation of "soul" I can come up with) can exist independently of our brains(the scientific evidence says otherwise, BTW), and b) that Christianity and its "heaven and hell"(AKA carrot and stick) are real(again, to date, there is no objective confirmation for any of it)

As for the thinly-veiled threats that Christians make..a la... "I'm just concerned for your soul!". It would seem that I shouldn't be offended if I don't believe in "hell", right? Bzzzzzt....Wrong. I'm offended by threats of "hell" in the exact same way I would be offended if your child walked up to me with his or her plastic gun, put the barrel to my temple, pulled the trigger, and said "BANG!".

In other words....

Yes, we know that plastic guns aren't real; we know that real bullets don't come out of pretend guns. But that is besides the point, isn't it? Yes, it is. We know that it's just plain rude and insulting when/if children do this sort of thing. Well, when Christians threaten me with "hell" - which, to me is likewise "pretend" until/unless they can prove that it is a real, literal place - it is no different....well, except that it is possibly even worse, since they are adults.

Decisions, decisions...

Most if not all Christians fall into one of two groups:

1) those who have read their bibles vertically, from cover to cover.

2) those who have not read their bibles vertically, from cover to cover.

For the time being, I'm going to talk about the former group.

Okay, for those who have read their bibles as delineated in 1, I contend that one of two things will invariably happen when these people encounter scripture that creates cognitive dissonance..i.e..ideas that don't make sense; ideas that raise an eyebrow.

Since many Christians like to extol Jesus, and while at the same time, they attempt to "divorce" or distance him and their relationship with him from "religion", let's go ahead and look directly at some of Jesus' own advice, advice that we should all be able to agree is crappy advice if anyone else were to give it:

- Do not plan for the future:

³⁴ Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

(Matthew 6:34)

- Do not save money:

¹⁹ Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.²⁰ But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

(Matthew 6:19-20)

- Sell everything and give it to the poor:

³³ Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

(Luke 12:33)

- Don't work to obtain food:

²⁷ Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.

(John 6:27)

- If someone hits you, invite them to do it again.

³⁹ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

(Matthew 5:39)

So, again, I would wager that we would all agree that this is some pretty horrible advice. But yet, people who remain in group 1, above, will look for ways to defend the above-quoted verses.

This brings me to my point from above:

When people from group 1 encounter these verses(and more verses like them), one of two things will take place. Either, a) they will be forced to look for ways to defend/reconcile these verses, aka, employ apologetics, or b) they will deconvert from Christianity. IOW, these people will be faced with a decision.

*It should be noted at this point that there could be Christians from group 2 reading this right now who didn't know that the bible contained such passages(I contend that there are Christians out there who have not seen such verses). In this case, these people are perfectly within reason should they rethink and change their minds about Christianity. IOW, should they come to an understanding with themselves that they can no longer honestly sustain their belief that Christianity is true, and/or, something that they need, they are being reasonable to discard/dismiss it. We can throw the proverbial "baby" out, right along with the dirty bath water.

You're being so negative!

::sigh::

I get this charge a lot, both in general..e.g....as theists accuse atheists of being "negative" in general, and also, sometimes in my personal life. Now, if anyone wants to attempt to convince me how making a conscious effort to confront reality head-on at all costs is being "negative", we can start there, but in all seriousness, you've got your work cut out for you. I say right up front that I don't like false hope. Nope, 'no likey. Why? Simple---because it's false. Shit happens, and why shouldn't it happen? There is not one scrap of evidence that demons and devils cause shit to happen. When shit happens, wish-thinking isn't going to change the fact, and many times, wish-thinking can even cause more shit later on.

For those who believe that a god does all the good stuff and a devil causes all the shit, you are perfectly free to believe that, but here's a few things to consider: 1) blaming an invisible bad guy when shit happens takes focus off any viable solution to the problem, while conveniently deflecting responsibility in cases where  people actually cause shit to happen. 2) a world in which there is a devil and god causin' shit and fixin' shit, respectively, is totally indistinguishable from a world in which we sometimes get lucky, and other times, we get unlucky...aka "shit happens".

Now, how, pray-tell, is it being "negative" to accept and live in the simpler, much-more-likely "world"? One saves so much time and avoids so much potential aggravation by dealing with what's in front of them. If common sense - in conjunction with things like logic and reason - tell you that something ain't right, then we owe it to ourselves to accept and confront that "something". Seriously, if we cannot trust our own ability to reason, then we've essentially got nothing. To do the polar opposite of using common sense - that is, to look for ways to reconcile utter nonsense - is to do ourselves a disservice. But yet, trusting our reasoning abilities makes us "negative" and "pessimists" according to some. Sad, but true.

I'd like to conclude with the following analogy:

If an alcoholic overcame their drinking dependency and he or she started a blog - say, a blog both to raise awareness to the disease and also as a form of self-therapy - who on earth would have the cajones to call him or her "negative"? How is this analogous to anything, you might ask?  Here's how: I have stopped be dependent on religion, namely, my inherited, Christian beliefs. I am now free to actually use my brain to its fullest potential.(negative?). I no longer believe that someone is watching me 24/7, listening in on my every flippin' thought.(negative?) I try to be good for goodness sake, despite that I am not perfect at this and have made many mistakes.(negative?) I have spoken very frankly about things on this blog(and at times, on Facebook) because I know that there people out there just like me who have honest doubts about what they were taught to believe, but yet, they are too afraid to question it, simply because they are taught to not question it.  Well, I feel that I am giving these people real hope, where their "faith" and/or their church might be giving them false hope, which is the equivalent of none at all.